Inhalt

Einleitung
Grundlagen der Nahost-Politik Obamas
Israelisch-palästinensischer Konflikt
Das Ringen um Irans nukleare Option
Schwäche der Ordnungsmacht

Einleitung

Das Grundproblem der Präsidentschaft Barack Obamas besteht darin, dass er zu viele politische Großprojekte gleichzeitig anschieben will - mit dem Ergebnis, dass ihm für jedes einzelne die Kraft, Konzentration und Konsistenz fehlen, die es zu einem erfolgreichen Abschluss braucht. Allein in der Außenpolitik reicht die Liste der "Prioritäten" vom Krieg in Afghanistan über die Neugestaltung des amerikanisch-russischen Verhältnisses bis zum Streit um das iranische Atomprogramm. Hinzu tritt die ambitionierte innenpolitische Agenda.

Schon heute verfestigt sich daher das Narrativ vom begnadeten Redner und Versöhner, der das größte politische Talent seiner Generation war, aber zu früh in höchste Verantwortung geriet und es trotz großem Initiativreichtum nicht vermochte, konkrete Ergebnisse und nachhaltige Vorteile für sein Volk zu erzielen. Allerdings ist ihm zugutezuhalten, dass er tief verwurzelte Probleme zeitig in Angriff genommen hat; ob er sie langfristig lösen kann, bleibt noch abzuwarten.[1] Dies gilt nicht zuletzt für Obamas Nahost-Politik, an der sich die Spannung aus übersteigerten Erwartungen, überfordernden Aufgaben und unübersichtlichen Zeithorizonten besonders deutlich darstellen lässt.

Grundlagen der Nahost-Politik Obamas

Für die USA ist der Nahe Osten traditionell von herausgehobener strategischer Bedeutung.[2] Auch unter Präsident Obama sind es im Wesentlichen drei Faktoren, auf die sich die besondere Bindung der Vereinigten Staaten an die Region gründet: Öl, Israel und "globale Stabilität".[3] Der erste Faktor ließe sich auch etwas weniger polemisch in "internationale Energiesicherheit" übersetzen, denn ein Drittel der weltweit nachgewiesenen Gasvorkommen und mehr als zwei Drittel der weltweit bekannten konventionellen Ölvorkommen befinden sich im Nahen und Mittleren Osten. Im Verhältnis zu anderen Industrienationen, insbesondere in Europa, decken die USA zwar nur einen kleinen Teil ihres Ölbedarfs durch Importe aus Nahost, weil sie über große eigene Förderkapazitäten verfügen und erhebliche Mengen aus Kanada beziehen. Globale Lieferengpässe oder starke Preiserhöhungen würden sich jedoch direkt auf die Weltwirtschaft auswirken, mit gravierenden Folgen für die Handelsmacht USA. Daher ist es seit Jahrzehnten ein zentrales nationales Interesse der USA, den freien Zugang zu den Ölreserven des Nahen und Mittleren Ostens zu garantieren.

Der zweite Faktor, Israel, beruht auf der historischen Rolle, welche die USA als Schutzmacht der Juden gespielt haben - als Heimstätte für Flüchtlinge aus Europa, Führungsmacht der Anti-Hitler-Koalition, treibende Kraft bei der Unterstützung Israels im Kalten Krieg. Weiterhin ist Israel nach wie vor die einzige Demokratie im Nahen Osten und weiß allein deswegen schon die Sympathie der Mehrheit der Amerikaner auf seiner Seite. Hinzu tritt der außergewöhnliche Einfluss der hervorragend organisierten proisraelischen Lobby auf den amerikanischen Kongress, der aber erst vor dem Hintergrund der ohnehin bestehenden historisch-politisch-kulturellen Nähe beider Staaten möglich und verständlich wird.[4]

Der dritte Faktor, "globale Stabilität", ist im Zuge des 11. Septembers 2001 in die erste Reihe der amerikanischen Motivationen gerückt. Für Präsident George W. Bush bestimmte er sogar den Blickwinkel, aus dem die Region wahrgenommen wurde. Die Kombination aus autokratischen Regimen, internationalem Terrorismus und Massenvernichtungswaffen wurde als die größte potenzielle Bedrohung der globalen Stabilität im 21. Jahrhundert gesehen. Auch heute noch besorgt diese Mischung westliche Sicherheitspolitiker in großem Maße. Sie ist nirgendwo so virulent wie im Nahen Osten, wie sich gerade um den Jahreswechsel wieder zeigte: Der tyrannische Charakter des iranischen Regimes ist angesichts der Protestbewegung besonders offenkundig, aber auch Ägypten, Syrien oder Saudi-Arabien sind kaum freiheitlicher. Der internationale Terrorismus wird von autoritären Machthabern mehr oder weniger offen gefördert, und es ist kein Zufall, dass der verhinderte Flugzeug-Attentäter vom ersten Weihnachtsfeiertag 2009 im Jemen ausgebildet wurde. Zugleich balanciert diese hochexplosive Region am Rande einer Rüstungsspirale mit Massenvernichtungswaffen - die Konsequenzen des iranischen Nuklearprogramms sind unabsehbar, und Syrien ist vermutlich erst 2007 durch einen israelischen Präventivschlag auf seinem eigenen Pfad zur Bombe zurückgeworfen worden. Unter den Bedingungen der Globalisierung sind diese Entwicklungen kein Regionalproblem mehr, sondern betreffen den gesamten Erdball. Daher sind die USA, die auch unter Obama Weltordnungsmacht sein wollen - um nicht zu sagen: müssen -, besonders gefordert.

Welche Maßnahmen Obama ergreifen würde, um diese drei genannten grundlegenden Ziele in Nahost umzusetzen, blieb im Wahlkampf unklar. Aus seiner politischen Vita ließ sich wenig ableiten, weil Obama zu wenig Erfahrung auf der internationalen Bühne hatte. Allerdings leisteten einige konfuse Bemerkungen zum Status Jerusalems und seine Assoziation mit antisemitischen Aktivisten wie Reverend Jeremiah Wright Bedenken Vorschub, Obama könnte eine härtere Gangart gegenüber Israel einschlagen, als seine beiden Vorgänger dies getan hatten.[5] Mit der Benennung der Schlüsselfiguren seiner Nahost-Politik stellte sich Obama jedoch ganz in die Tradition gemäßigter Demokraten: Dennis Ross (Sonderberater für den Persischen Golf und Südwest-Asien), George Mitchell (Sondergesandter Nahost), Dan Shapiro (Leiter der Nahost-Abteilung im Nationalen Sicherheitsrat) und andere hatten schon unter Bill Clinton ähnliche Funktionen inne. Auch Außenministerin Hillary Clinton und der Nationale Sicherheitsberater General James Jones stehen für eine nüchterne Realpolitik, die zuerst die Interessen Amerikas in der Region im Blick hat und von Verständnis für die Situation Israels getragen ist.

Woran es bis heute allerdings sowohl im Hinblick auf den Nahen Osten als auch auf die Rolle der USA in der internationalen Politik insgesamt noch fehlt, ist eine Konzeption der außenpolitischen Vorstellungen Obamas. Bislang hat seine Regierung noch keine National Security Strategy vorgelegt, und auch in vielen einzelnen Bereichen (Nuklearstrategie, Verteidigungspolitik) mangelt es an richtungweisenden Dokumenten. Daher lässt sich Obamas Nahost-Politik nur aus den Reden und dem zuweilen widersprüchlichen Handeln seiner Regierung ableiten. Das in seiner Amtseinführungsrede angekündigte außenpolitische Leitmotiv seiner Präsidentschaft, die ausgestreckte Hand, gibt dabei auch seiner Nahost-Politik das Maß vor. Am deutlichsten wurde dies in seiner Grundsatzrede in Kairo am 4. Juni 2009, in der er einen "Neubeginn" im Verhältnis zwischen den USA und den Muslimen in aller Welt ausrief. Obama sprach ausführlich von seiner persönlichen Erfahrung mit dem Islam (er verbrachte einen Teil seiner Kindheit in Indonesien), von der muslimischen Gemeinschaft in den Vereinigten Staaten und der Kompatibilität liberal-amerikanischer Werte mit denen des Islam. Er betonte, dass Amerika und der Westen mit der muslimischen Welt gemeinsam gegen diejenigen kämpfen wollen, die den Islam missbrauchen, um verächtliche politische Ziele zu erreichen. Obamas Appell zur Zusammenarbeit und Völkerverständigung erstreckte sich nicht nur auf den Kampf gegen den Extremismus, sondern bezog sich auch auf wirtschaftliche Entwicklung, die Förderung der Demokratie und die Eindämmung der Verbreitung von Atomwaffen. Im Gegenzug offerierte er respektvolle Freundlichkeiten gegenüber der muslimischen Welt, deren kulturhistorische Leistungen er pries, und schärfere Töne gegenüber der israelischen Siedlungspolitik.

Israelisch-palästinensischer Konflikt

Als Obama zum Präsidenten vereidigt wurde, waren die Hoffnungen auf rasche Fortschritte im sogenannten Friedensprozess gering: Israel hatte erst an diesem Tag seine umstrittene Intervention in Gaza beendet und zwischen Israelis und Palästinensern bestanden keine zielführenden Verhandlungen. Ohnehin mangelte es beiden Seiten an starker Führung für solche Verhandlungen - Präsident Mahmud Abbas konnte kaum noch beanspruchen, für die Mehrheit der Palästinenser zu sprechen, und der israelische Ministerpräsident Olmert sah seiner Abberufung Ende Februar entgegen. Sein Nachfolger, Benjamin Netanjahu, verfolgte eine harte Linie gegenüber den Palästinensern und saß zudem einer instabilen Koalition vor. Auch von amerikanischer Seite waren aufgrund der Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise zunächst keine neuen Impulse zu erwarten, wie Thomas Friedman in der New York Times erklärte: "Obama has three immediate priorities: banks, banks, banks - and none of them are the West Bank."[6]

Nichtsdestotrotz engagierte sich Obama schon früh im Nahost-Konflikt: Mitchell war einer der ersten ernannten Sondergesandten und absolvierte seine erste Dienstreise nach Israel noch vor der Wahl Netanjahus. Er war im Jahr 2001 mit einem Report hervorgetreten, der eine wesentliche Grundlage der Road Map werden sollte. Dementsprechend wurde dieser "Wegweiser" des Nahost-Quartetts (USA, Russland, EU, UN) auch unter Obama zum Leitfaden des Friedensprozesses. Dem stimmten sowohl die Palästinenser als auch der israelische Premier bei seinem Besuch in Washington im Juni 2009 prinzipiell zu. Obama drängte darauf, die Verhandlungen wieder in Gang zu setzen. Er war der Ansicht, dass es nicht genügt, wenn sich der amerikanische Präsident erst im letzten Jahr seiner Amtszeit mit ganzer Kraft für den Friedensprozess einsetzt, wie es Clinton in Camp David und Bush in Annapolis getan hatten. Insbesondere bemühte sich Obama, das Vertrauen der Palästinenser zu gewinnen und die USA als einen "ehrlichen Makler" darzustellen. Dazu übernahm er nicht nur George W. Bushs Bekenntnis zu einer Zwei-Staaten-Lösung, sondern forderte den völligen Stopp des israelischen Siedlungsbaus sowohl im Westjordanland als auch in Ost-Jerusalem. Dies bedeutete eine Neujustierung der amerikanischen Politik, die bislang zumindest das "natürliche Wachstum", den Ausbau bestehender Siedlungen aufgrund der Geburtenentwicklung, stillschweigend geduldet hatte.

Diese Fokussierung auf die israelische Siedlungspolitik sollte sich für Obama als Fehlkalkulation erweisen. Denn Netanjahu erklärte sich nicht bereit, die Siedlungsaktivitäten einzustellen. Er verwies darauf, dass die Rücknahme israelischer Siedlungen in Gaza keine Friedensdividende, sondern weitere palästinensische Gewalt gebracht habe. Zudem konnte er sich rühmen, einen großen Schritt auf die Palästinenser zugegangen zu sein, als er in Reaktion auf Obamas Rede in Kairo erstmals einer Zwei-Staaten-Lösung zugestimmt hatte (wenn auch unter erheblichen Auflagen, wie der Demilitarisierung des entstehenden palästinensischen Staates). Für ihn sollte die Siedlungsfrage Gegenstand israelisch-palästinensischer Verhandlungen sein - gemäß des etablierten Prinzips "Land für Frieden". Abbas hingegen, ermutigt von den starken Worten Obamas und unter Druck der populären Hamas, machte den israelischen Siedlungsstopp nunmehr zur Vorbedingung für seine Rückkehr an den Verhandlungstisch.

Konfrontiert mit der harten Haltung Netanjahus, knickte die Regierung Obama ein: Außenministerin Clinton stellte klar, dass der Siedlungsstopp keine Vorbedingung für Verhandlungen sein dürfe, sondern Teil einer Gesamtlösung für den Konflikt sein müsse. Daraufhin erklärte Netanjahu im November ein zehnmonatiges Moratorium zum Siedlungsbau, das sich allerdings nicht auf ungefähr 3000 bereits genehmigte Siedlungsbauten erstreckte. So gelang es ihm auf politisch elegante Weise, ohne signifikante Zugeständnisse in dieser für Israel grundlegenden Frage, Entgegenkommen gegenüber Amerikanern und Palästinensern zu signalisieren und zugleich Abbas die Verantwortung für das Ausbleiben von ernsthaften Verhandlungen zuzuschieben.[7] Abbas wiederum ist durch die widersprüchliche amerikanische Politik brüskiert worden und kann nun hinter seine Haltung, den Siedlungsstopp zur Bedingung für Verhandlungen zu machen, nicht mehr zurück, da ihn dies endgültig seine Autorität kosten würde. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist seine Drohung, zur nächsten Präsidentschaftswahl nicht mehr anzutreten, durchaus nachvollziehbar. Zwar würde er voraussichtlich trotzdem Führer der Fatah und Vorsitzender der PLO bleiben, aber ein Wechsel der palästinensischen Präsidentschaft hätte zu diesem Zeitpunkt keinen positiven Einfluss auf die wechselseitige Friedensbereitschaft. Denn derzeit ist niemand in Sicht, der ohne die Unterstützung der Hamas ins Präsidentenamt gelangen könnte.

Dass die Uneindeutigkeit der amerikanischen Politik zu solch einer verfahrenen Situation beigetragen hat, ist besonders bedauerlich, wenn man bedenkt, dass die Regierung Netanjahu - im Gegensatz zu ihren Vorgängern - ohnehin keine neuen Siedlungsaktivitäten genehmigt hatte. Zudem ist Netanjahu auf rechte Koalitionspartner angewiesen, mit denen ein offiziell erklärter, umfassender Siedlungsstopp sowieso nicht zu erreichen gewesen wäre. Die Fokussierung auf die Siedlungspolitik war ein strategischer Fehler, der dazu geführt hat, dass die Palästinenser nun dem Verhandlungsweg den Rücken zukehren und immer stärker mit der einseitigen Ausrufung eines palästinensischen Staates liebäugeln. Solch ein Schritt würde auf erbitterten israelischen Widerstand stoßen und in letzter Konsequenz nicht nur die Road Map, sondern sogar die Vereinbarungen von Oslo unterminieren. Daher resümiert Lars Hänsel in seiner Analyse der Nahost-Politik Obamas ebenso zutreffend wie düster: "Nach zehn Monaten intensiver Bemühungen Obamas im Nahen Osten sind noch keine positiven Ergebnisse der neuen Politik erkennbar. Im Gegenteil: Die gegenwärtige Situation, in der substanzielle Verhandlungen in weite Ferne gerückt sind, führt nicht nur zurück zur Situation vor der Konferenz in Annapolis, sondern hinterfragt selbst die Ergebnisse des Oslo-Prozesses. Damit ist die Situation im Nahen Osten so schwierig wie seit Jahrzehnten nicht mehr."[8]

In Washington mehren sich deshalb die Stimmen, die eine Reduzierung des amerikanischen Engagements im Nahost-Konflikt fordern. Das Argument ist nicht neu: Solange die Kontrahenten in der Region nicht bereit sind für Verhandlungen und Kompromisse, kann auch ein starkes Amerika keinen Frieden erzwingen, zumal die üblichen Ideen - etwa die Aushandlung eines separaten israelisch-syrischen Friedens - derzeit nicht aussichtsreicher sind als in den vergangenen Jahren. Obamas verstolperte erste Initiative hat ihn zudem auf beiden Seiten Vertrauen und Respekt gekostet. Außerdem lässt die Vielfalt der drängenden außen- und innenpolitischen Herausforderungen keine Konzentration auf den Friedensprozess zu. Obama wäre daher gut beraten, sich zunächst mit der Vermeidung weiterer Eskalation zu begnügen, anstatt sich in vergeblichen - oder gar kontraproduktiven - Initiativen zu verausgaben.

Das Ringen um Irans nukleare Option

Auch in der amerikanischen Politik gegenüber dem Iran hat Obama einen Wandel vollzogen, ohne bislang das gewünschte Ergebnis zu erzielen. Schon in seiner ersten Pressekonferenz als Präsident machte sich Obama die Sprachregelung der Regierung Bush zu eigen, indem er eine nukleare Bewaffnung des Iran "inakzeptabel" nannte.[9] Eine zivile Nutzung der Nuklearenergie sollte dem Iran möglich gemacht werden, aber unter der Bedingung sich an den von ihm ratifizierten Atomwaffensperrvertrag zu halten. Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen, setzte Obama allerdings nicht auf Konfrontation, sondern auf die ausgestreckte Hand. So sprach er in seinen Fernsehauftritten ebenso wie in seiner Rede in Kairo stets von der "Islamischen Republik Iran", verwendete also den offiziellen Namen des Landes, den amerikanische Diplomaten bislang mit Blick auf die konfliktreiche Geschichte seit der Islamischen Revolution gemieden haben. Auch bekräftigte er sein Wahlkampfversprechen, ohne Vorbedingungen zu ranghohen Gesprächen mit Vertretern des iranischen Regimes bereit zu sein. Darüber hinaus vermied er während der iranischen Demonstrationen gegen den Wahlbetrug Präsident Ahmadinedschads jede Brüskierung der iranischen Führung - was ihm in den USA massive Kritik einbrachte.

Die iranische Seite reagierte mit der bekannten Taktik aus Schuldzuweisungen, scheinbarem Entgegenkommen und tatsächlicher Verschleppung der Verhandlungen - und arbeitete weiter an ihrem Nuklearprogramm. Neue Raketen wurden getestet, und nahe der heiligen Stadt Ghom wurde eine weitere Anlage zur Urananreicherung publik. Unter Experten besteht kein Zweifel mehr, dass der Iran nach einer militärischen Nuklearoption strebt und diese vielleicht schon dieses Jahr in Reichweite sein wird.[10] Zumindest wird Iran dann ein "virtueller Nuklearstaat" sein, der keine Bombe vorhält, sie aber in kürzester Zeit bauen könnte. Im Ergebnis bedeutet dies, dass die iranische Führung Obamas ausgestreckte Hand ausgeschlagen hat.[11]

Die Regierung Obama reagiert darauf mit Ratlosigkeit. Ähnlich wie in der israelischen Siedlungsfrage scheint es keinen feststehenden alternativen Plan zu geben, wenn die erste Initiative scheitert. Dies liegt zum einen an den zahlreichen parallelen Großprojekten, die keine Konzentration auf ein Problem erlauben; zum anderen stellt das iranische Nuklearprogramm eine besonders vertrackte Herausforderung dar. Denn eine Verhandlungslösung wird immer unwahrscheinlicher. Das iranische Regime - und das gilt auch für "Oppositionelle" wie Ahmadinejads betrogenen Gegenspieler Hussein Moussawi - strebt nach einer (Über-)Lebensversicherung sowie nach einer regionalen Vormachtstellung. Beides ist durch nichts so zuverlässig zu erreichen wie durch die Atomwaffe. Es ist unklar, was die Vereinigten Staaten und die internationale Gemeinschaft überhaupt in Verhandlungen anbieten könnten, um die Attraktivität der Bombe aufzuwiegen.

Der andere Weg wäre, den Iran davon zu überzeugen, dass die nukleare Bewaffnung eben nicht attraktiv ist, sondern kostenträchtig. Dem Iran muss verdeutlicht werden, dass der angestrebte Sicherheits- und Prestigegewinn wesentlich kleiner ausfallen würde als erwartet, da andere regionale Akteure (Saudi-Arabien, Ägypten, Türkei) wahrscheinlich mit eigenen Rüstungsprogrammen reagieren würden. Zudem wäre die amerikanische Sicherheitsgarantie, die für einen nichtnuklearen Iran schon jetzt zu greifen ist, dann in weiter Ferne. Das würde auch schärfere internationale Sanktionen gegenüber dem Iran bedeuten - so politisch unwahrscheinlich und unwirksam sie derzeit auch erscheinen mögen, weil sie von verschiedenen Akteuren (China, Russland, aber auch manchen EU-Staaten) unterlaufen werden. Nicht zuletzt bleibt die Drohung eines Militärschlags: Eine mehrjährige Verzögerung des iranischen Nuklearprogramms durch einen präventiven Angriff halten viele Militärstrategen für möglich.[12] Allerdings wäre der damit verbundene Preis enorm: Iran würde in Afghanistan und Irak destabilisierend wirken, das Regime würde sich im nationalistischen Geist festigen und der internationale islamistische Terrorismus erhielte gewaltigen Zulauf. Von den politischen und materiellen Kosten einer solchen Maßnahme für die geschwächten USA ist dabei noch gar nicht die Rede.

Dieses Dilemma kreist um eine grundsätzliche Frage: Wird das iranische Regime die Atombombe einsetzen oder kann es davon zuverlässig abgeschreckt werden? Aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach sind die iranischen Machthaber rationale Akteure und werden das eigene Land nicht der Vernichtung preisgeben, um Israel auszulöschen. Aber davon kann nicht mit absoluter Sicherheit ausgegangen werden - und wie will Obama die Israelis dazu bringen, sich auf diese existenzielle Wette einzulassen anstatt den Präventivschlag zu riskieren? Und selbst wenn Frieden in Abschreckung zwischen Israel und dem Iran möglich ist, hätte die Nuklearisierung des Irans Folgen für das Machtgleichgewicht in der Region. Wie kann dann eine destabilisierende Rüstungsspirale verhindert werden? Und welche Zukunft bliebe dem Atomwaffensperrvertrag und der internationalen Norm der Nichtverbreitung? Die Regierung Obama hat bislang - ebenso wie ihre europäischen Verbündeten - auf keine dieser Fragen praktikable Antworten gegeben. Die Zeit des Status quo läuft unterdessen ab.

Schwäche der Ordnungsmacht

Die frustrierenden Beispiele des Friedensprozesses und des iranischen Nuklearprogramms zeigen, dass der Einfluss Amerikas in Nahost schwindet. Zumindest fällt es den USA noch schwerer als früher, Ergebnisse zu erreichen, die in ihrem Sinne sind. Ein Grund für die Schwäche der Ordnungsmacht sind die gewaltigen Belastungen, die mit dem Irakkrieg einhergingen. Insofern ist es nicht ohne Ironie, dass Obama gerade in der Irak-Politik einen seiner bislang größten Erfolge feiern konnte. Denn aufgrund des Strategiewechsels und der Truppenverstärkung, die Präsident Bush gegen den Widerstand der Demokraten durchgesetzt hatte, sind in den vergangenen beiden Jahren die Verluste amerikanischer Truppen um über 80 Prozent gesunken. Das korrespondiert mit einem Rückgang der Anschläge und zivilen Opfer. Das erlaubte es Obama, in einer seiner ersten Amtshandlungen sein Wahlversprechen einzulösen und den schrittweisen Abzug aus dem Irak einzuleiten. In diesem Jahr soll er abgeschlossen sein, wobei aber rund 50 000 US-Soldaten zum Schutz der demokratischen Verfassung in dem politisch immer noch fragilen Staat bleiben sollen. Zurecht unterstützt Obama auf diese Weise die Entwicklung des Irak zu einer stabilen Demokratie - denn solch ein islamischer Verbündeter wäre für die USA und den Westen insgesamt ein erheblicher strategischer Zugewinn.

Gegenwärtig jedoch ist die strategische Situation ernüchternd. Iran ist als eigentlicher Sieger aus den Kriegen Bushs hervorgegangen: Befreit von den Gegnern im Irak und in Afghanistan ist der Weg zur regionalen Vormacht geebnet. Israelis und Palästinenser haben sich von Obama abgewendet und sind in ihren Positionen verhärtet. Andere regionale Akteure halten sich zurück, solange die USA so unbestimmt auftreten. Insgesamt wirkt die amerikanische Nahost-Politik ideenlos, das Land machtpolitisch geschwächt und der Präsident durch die Vielzahl der internationalen und heimischen Herausforderungen abgelenkt. Zugleich wirkt der Einfluss anderer großer Mächte wie China und Russland auf die Region eher kontraproduktiv. Es ist Zeit für Europa, sich stärker in Nahost zu engagieren.

Ich danke Daniel Schaffer für seine Unterstützung bei der Recherche für diesen Beitrag.

Fußnoten

1 Vgl. Zbigniew Brzezinski, From Hope to Audacity, in: Foreign Affairs, 89 (2010) 1, S. 16-30.
2 Vgl. Gert Krell, Die USA, Israel und der Nahost-Konflikt, in: APuZ, (2006) 14, S. 25 - 31.
3 Vgl. Peter Rudolf, Das "neue" Amerika. Außenpolitik unter Barack Obama, Frankfurt/M. 2009, S. 93f. Rudolf beschränkt sich allerdings auf die ersten beiden Faktoren.
4 Zur Debatte um die jüdische Lobby vgl. Tim Maschuw, Israels Lobby vs. Amerikas Interessen?, Bonn 2009.
5 Vgl. für einen besonders bissigen Ausdruck dieser Befürchtung: Norman Podhoretz, How Obama's America Might Threaten Israel, in: Commentary, (2009) 5, S. 21 - 26.
6 The New York Times vom 8.2. 2009, S. WK 10.
7 Vgl. The Economist vom 5.11. 2009, S. 33.
8 Lars Hänsel, Früher Einsatz - früher Ausstieg? Die bisherige Politik der Obama-Administration im Nahostkonflikt, in: KAS-Auslandsinformationen, (2009) 12, S. 22 - 34, hier S. 32.
9 The Vgl. Washington Post vom 8.11. 2008, S. A4.
10 Vgl. Hans Rühle, Nuklearmacht Iran? Das Jahr der Entscheidung, in: Die Welt vom 8. 7. 2009, S. 5.
11 Vgl. Richard Perle, The Open Hand, Slapped, in: The American Interest, 5 (2010) 3, S. 10 - 11.
12 Eine detaillierte Analyse der Option eines Präventivschlags (allerdings durch das israelische Militär) bieten Abdullah Toukan/Anthony H. Cordesman, Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Development Facilities, 14.3. 2009, online: http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf (5.1. 2010).

Der Beitrag erscheint mit freundlicher Genehmigung von Autor und Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (APuZ 9/2010).

Die Ankündigung von Barack Obama, dem unbefangenen Dialog in den amerikanischen Außenbeziehungen wieder mehr Gewicht zu verleihen, ist weltweit mit Wohlwollen aufgenommen worden. Wer auf die Zwischentöne achtet, muss gleichwohl zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass militärische Stärke und Druck für die USA Eckpfeiler ihrer Politik bleiben. Obamas Zusicherung, die Rolle der USA als zivile und militärische Führungsmacht zu bewahren, birgt - trotz parallel gesendeter konzilianter Töne - Konfliktpotential, wenn es um die praktische Umsetzung einer auf Kooperation und Gleichberechtigung basierenden Außenpolitik geht. An dem Verhältnis der USA zu Nordkorea lässt sich das exemplarisch veranschaulichen. Birgt der Wechsel im Weißen Haus die Aussicht auf eine nachhaltige Einbindung des isolierten Landes in die internationale Gemeinschaft, die eine friedliche Lösung des Streits um das nordkoreanische Nuklear- und Raketenprogramm in Aussicht stellt? Voraussetzung dafür wären konstruktive Signale aus Washington, die bisher auf sich warten lassen.

Historisch belastetes Verhältnis

Die „Demokratische Volksrepublik Korea“ wird von großen Teilen der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft als „Problemstaat“ definiert. Seit Anfang der 1990er Jahre gibt zudem das nordkoreanische Nuklear- und Raketenprogramm Anlass zur Sorge. Infolge der Kernwaffentests im Oktober 2006 und Mai 2009, deren politisches Ziel es war, die USA zu bilateralen Verhandlungen zu bewegen, hat sich der Konflikt weiter verkompliziert. Der 2003 innerhalb der so genannten 6-Parteien-Gespräche wieder aufgenommene Dialog ist zum Stillstand gekommen. Auf der Suche nach Lösungsansätzen ist es wichtig zu begreifen, dass die Ursachen für den Konflikt nicht allein Pyongyang anzulasten sind. Vier Punkte sind bei der Frage hervorzuheben, warum es den USA bisher nicht gelungen ist, eine effektive Lösungsstrategie zu entwickeln.

Erstens: Die politische Elite der USA verfügt über nur unzureichende Landeskenntnisse Nordkoreas, was dazu führt, dass die Entscheidungsträger kaum Gespür für koreanische Denkmuster entwickelt haben. Korea gehört zu den ältesten Kulturnationen. Wegen seiner strategischen Lage und Bodenschätze war das Land in seiner Geschichte fortwährenden Angriffen von außen ausgesetzt. Angesichts des von Wilson 1918 verfochtenen Selbstbestimmungsrechts der Völker und der von den Alliierten 1943 vereinbarten Unabhängigkeit Koreas, hegte das koreanische Volk nach der Befreiung von japanischer Zwangsherrschaft 1945 die berechtigte Hoffnung, in kurzer Zeit seine Souveränität wiederzuerlangen. Wenig bekannt ist, dass Franklin D. Roosevelt, der hinter verschlossenen Türen die Idee einer alliierten Treuhandschaft für Korea schon 1943 diskutierte, von einer Zeitspanne von 40 Jahren ausging, die das koreanische Volk benötigen würde, um die Befähigung zu erlangen, als Nation souverän zu agieren. Das Bekanntwerden solcher Überlegungen und die nachfolgende Koreapolitik der Alliierten hat in der koreanischen Gesellschaft große Empörung ausgelöst.

Unmittelbar nach dem Eintreffen sowjetischer und amerikanischer Streitkräfte wurde das Land zur Kampfzone der amerikanisch-sowjetischen Systemkonfrontation in Ostasien. Die Differenzen innerhalb der koreanischen Fraktionen und die fehlerbehaftete Treuhandpolitik Moskaus und Washingtons bildeten die Grundlage für die 1948 vollzogene Teilung des Landes und den Ausbruch des Koreakriegs zwei Jahre später. Innerhalb der nordkoreanischen Führung hat die von den USA gehegte Skepsis gegenüber der koreanischen Fähigkeit zur Selbstverwaltung für anhaltendes Misstrauen und Feindseligkeit gegenüber Washington gesorgt. Die von Pyongyang bis heute gepflegte Vorstellung, die USA seien in Korea nicht als Befreier und ehrliche Makler sondern als Nachfolger des imperialen Japan in Escheinung getreten, lässt sich überwiegend auf das ungeschickte Agieren der USA zwischen 1945 und 1948 zurückführen.

Zweitens: In den amerikanischen Regierungen herrscht die latente Überzeugung, dass das nordkoreanische Herrschaftssystem mit dem Zerfall des Ostblocks keine Existenzberechtigung mehr besitzt. Es hat Washington große Überwindung gekostet zu akzeptieren, dass das Land nicht im Strudel der postsowjetischen Entwicklung zusammengebrochen ist. Die Führung in Pyongyang hat nicht nur den Systemkollaps abgewehrt sondern auch ihren Führungsanspruch verteidigt. Der von allen amerikanischen Regierungen gehegte Wunsch nach Regimewechsel und die damit verbundene Politik der Isolation und Anklage muss daher als kontraproduktiv bewertet werden, weil beides einem objektiven und eingehenden Studium der Entwicklungen in Nordkorea im Weg stand und damit den Entwurf einer konstruktiven Strategie verhindert hat.

Daran anknüpfend haben es die USA drittens versäumt, das legitime Sicherheitsbedürfnis Nordkoreas anzuerkennen und in ihre strategische Planung einzubeziehen.

Viertens haben andauernde Streitigkeiten zwischen Vertretern des Weißen Haus sowie dem Verteidigungs- und Außenministerium um die vermeintlich richtige Nordkorea-Strategie dazu geführt, dass unterschiedliche Signale nach Pyongyang gesendet wurden. Diese Inkonsistenz hat der nordkoreanischen Führung über Jahre hinweg immer wieder Anlass zu weiteren Provokationen geboten, um ihrem Wunsch, direkte Verhandlungen mit Washington zu führen, Nachdruck zu verleihen.

Kontinuität überwiegt Veränderung

In den amerikanischen Wahlkampfdebatten hat sich Obama von seinem republikanischen Rivalen McCain außenpolitisch durch die Ankündigung abgesetzt, er wolle sich zur Konfliktlösung mit Ländern wie dem Iran und Nordkorea ohne Vorbedingungen an den Verhandlungstisch setzen. Von vielen Beobachtern wurden Äußerungen dieser Art positiv interpretiert. Sie sahen darin die reale Chance für einen Neuanfang in den internationalen Beziehungen und insbesondere im Umgang mit sogenannten Problemstaaten. Ein klarer Blick auf die Sachlage, den angesichts der ausbrechenden "Obamanie" nur wenige Analytiker behielten, ließ diese Einschätzung von Anfang an in einem fragwürdigen Licht erscheinen.

Zum einen war sich die neue US-Regierung angesichts der anstehenden Probleme darüber im Klaren, dass die amerikanischen Wähler sie vor allem an innenpolitischen Erfolgen messen und weniger ihren außenpolitischen Neuansatz honorieren würden. An erster Stelle stehen für das Weiße Haus deshalb positive Ergebnisse im Bereich der Arbeitsmarkt-, Energie-, Erziehungs- und Gesundheitspolitik. Zum anderen gilt es sich vor Augen zu führen, dass auch für die politischen Wegbegleiter Obamas der Erhalt und Ausbau amerikanischer Vorherrschaft Dreh- und Angelpunkt ihrer politischen Bemühungen ist.

Für die Schlüsselfiguren der neuen Regierung, wie dem Stabschef Rahm Emanuel und der Außenministerin Hillary Clinton, bilden politische Plattformen und Denkfabriken wie die „New Democrat Coalition“ und das „Progressive Policy Institute“ die Basis ihres ideologischen Rüstzeugs. Das Bedrohungsempfinden der Regierung mit Blick auf Länder wie Nordkorea unterscheidet sich wenig von dem ihrer Vorgänger. Ähnliches gilt in bezug auf geeignete Maßnahmen. Ein starkes Militär und der mögliche Aufbau einer Raketenabwehr zählen weiterhin zu probaten Mitteln der Gefahrenabwehr. Obwohl kein Anlass besteht, Obamas Dialog- und Abrüstungsbereitschaft grundsätzlich in Frage zu stellen, scheint die Ambivalenz zwischen den versöhnlichen Tönen und dem Aufrechterhalten militärischer Optionen wenig geeignet, gegenüber Pyongyang den Willen zum gleichberechtigten Dialog glaubhaft zu machen.

Kritiker der Bush-Politik, wie die heutige US-Botschafterin bei den Vereinten Nationen, Susan Rice, haben sich während der Amtszeit der Vorgängerregierung für einen dauerhaften bilateralen Dialog zwischen den USA und Nordkorea ausgesprochen sowie für eine Erklärung, dass Washington keine feindlichen Absichten gegenüber Pyongyang hege. Dagegen lässt Außenministerin Clinton in ihren Stellungnahmen keinen Zweifel daran aufkommen, dass die Wiederaufnahme der Gespräche mit Nordkorea von weit reichenden Schritten begleitet sein müsse. Die USA, so die Position der US-Außenministerin, seien niemals bereit, normale Beziehungen mit einem nuklearen Nordkorea aufzunehmen. Ein Klima für Veränderungen geschweige denn neue Ansätze im Umgang mit Nordkorea ist unter diesen Umständen schwer vorstellbar.

Der Besuch des neuen US-Sondergesandten in Pyongyang

Am 8. Dezember 2009 traf der amerikanische Sondergesandte für Nordkorea, Stephen Bosworth, zu einem Besuch in Pyongyang ein. Bosworth, der bereits als Direktor der Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) und US-Botschafter in Südkorea tätig war, ist mit der Problematik vertraut. Sein Treffen mit Vizeaußenminister Kang Suk-Ju und anderen Repräsentanten markierte die erste offizielle Begegnung zwischen Vertretern der neuen US-Regierung und der Führung in Pyongyang. Bosworths Aufgabe bestand darin, die nordkoreanische Position mit Blick auf eine Wiederaufnahme der ausgesetzten 6-Parteien-Gespräche auszuloten. Folgt man den öffentlichen Verlautbarungen aus Pyongyang, ist die Aufhebung der infolge des vergangenen Nukleartests vom VN-Sicherheitsrat verhängten Sanktionen (VN-Resolution 1874) eine Voraussetzung dafür. Washington hat seinerseits deutlich gemacht, dass die Rückkehr Nordkoreas an den Verhandlungstisch und nachprüfbare Schritte bei der Demontage des nordkoreanischen Nuklearprogramms an erster Stelle stehen müssen. Obgleich mit der im September 2005 innerhalb der 6-Parteien-Gespräche gemeinsam abgegebenen Erklärung ein Dokument existiert, dass den Weg zur Beilegung des Nuklearkonflikts ebnet, befindet sich der Prozess in einer Sackgasse. Im Kern dreht es sich um die Frage, welcher der beiden Akteure bereit ist, den ersten Schritt zu tun.

Erklärungen aus dem amerikanischen Außenministerium zufolge ist die Zusammenkunft Bosworths mit seinen nordkoreanischen Gesprächspartnern nach Plan verlaufen. Beide Seiten hätten ihre Position deutlich gemacht und die zentrale Bedeutung der gemeinsamen Erklärung aus dem Jahr 2005 unterstrichen. In einer Pressekonferenz vom 10. Dezember 2009 hielt Bosworth fest, der bilaterale Meinungsaustausch habe im Rahmen der 6-Parteien-Gespräche stattgefunden mit dem Fokus, die nachprüfbare Denuklearisierung der koreanischen Halbinsel und die Umsetzung der 2005 gemeinsam verabschiedeten Erklärung voranzubringen. Owohl von offizieller Seite zu Beginn der Bosworth-Mission abgestritten, führte der Sondergesandte auch einen Brief des amerikanischen Präsidenten im Gepäck, in dem dieser die Vorzüge des Dialogs gegenüber einer fortwährenden Isolation Nordkoreas erläuterte und eine Reihe von Erleichterungen für Pyongyang im Fall einer Rückkehr an den Verhandlungstisch in Aussicht stellte. Dieses persönliche, im Vergleich zu seinen Vorgängern relativ früh gesendete Signal, lässt sich als deutliches Zeichen interpretieren, dass Obama den Dialog mit Nordkorea und keine weitere Eskalation der Auseinandersetzung wünscht. Angesichts des wachsenden innenpolitischen Widerstands, den der US-Präsident gegenüber seiner Politik verspürt, und in Anbetracht der bevorstehenden Kongresswahlen, die seinen Handlungsspielraum weiter einschränken, müsste Pyongyang nun die richtigen Schlüsse aus dieser Botschaft ziehen. Auf der anderen Seite muss sich das Weiße Haus bewusst machen, dass eine nachhaltige Lösung des Konflikts und die Umsetzung der bisher getroffenen Vereinbarungen nur dann möglich sein wird, wenn die USA das grundlegende Sicherheitsbedürfnis der Nordkoreaner anerkennen und Pyongyang die amerikanische Politik nicht länger als Bedrohung empfindet. Voraussetzung dafür ist, dass Obama seinen vielversprechenden Ankündigungen in den Bereichen Dialog und Abrüstung Taten folgen lässt.

Notwendige Schritte

Auch wenn militärische Optionen mit Blick auf die Beseitigung des nordkoreanischen Nuklearprogramms nach wie vor auf dem Tisch der amerikanischen Entscheidungsträger liegen – eine wirklich brauchbare Alternative zum Dialog sind sie angesichts der zerstörerischen Konsequenzen im Falle einer militärischen Auseinandersetzung nicht. Um das für konstruktive Gespräche notwendige Umfeld zu schaffen täten beide Seiten gut daran, ihre immer wiederkehrenden Drohgebärden einzustellen, und so einen wichtigen Beitrag für einen vertrauensvollen Umgang miteinander zu leisten. Pyongyang sollte sich klar machen, dass die Chancen für einen offen geführten Dialog unter dem jetzigen Präsidenten so gut stehen, wie schon lange nicht mehr. Weitere Raketen- oder Nukleartests werden die Gesprächsbereitschaft Washingtons nicht erhöhen, sondern den Hardlinern in der amerikanischen Regierung und Opposition, die grundsätzlich gegen eine Zusammenarbeit mit Nordkorea sind, in die Hände spielen.

Washington seinerseits muss sich den Realitäten stellen und Schritte wagen, die einen Wechsel in der Politik gegenüber Nordkorea sichtbar symbolisieren. Wichtig wäre ein Aussetzen der gemeinsamen Militärmanöver mit Südkorea, die Pyongyang angesichts ihrer Größenordnung zurecht als Bedrohung empfindet. Ohnehin wären vertrauensbildende Maßnahmen im Militärischen eines der wirksamsten Mittel, um das Verhältnis zwischen den USA und Nordkorea zu entspannen. Auch eine offizielle Erklärung Washingtons, keine feindlichen Absichten gegenüber Nordkorea zu hegen, würde die USA weder diplomatisch noch militärisch schwächen. Ungeachtet seiner Raketen- und Kernwaffentests stellt Nordkorea für das amerikanische Festland keine ernsthafte Bedrohung dar. Mit dem Aussetzen der Militärmanöver und einer "Nichtangriffserklärung" hätte Washington zwei zentrale Vorbehalte Pyongyangs aus dem Weg geräumt, ohne im Anschluss daran mit dem Rücken zur Wand zu stehen, geschweige denn Druck von Nordkorea genommen zu haben.

Schließlich läge es nach einem solchen Entgegenkommen eindeutig bei der nordkoreanischen Führung, anhand praktischer Schritte zu zeigen, dass sie zu einer nachhaltigen und transparenten Zusammenarbeit mit ihren regionalen Nachbarn und den USA bereit ist. In einer solchen - drohgebärdenfreien - Atmosphäre hätte die Umsetzung der 2005 gemeinsam getroffenen Erklärung und die Rückführung Nordkoreas in die internationale Staatengemeinschaft eine realistische Chance. Angesichts der bevorstehenden Konferenz zur Überprüfung des Atomwaffensperrvertrags wird sich zeigen, ob Barack Obama in der Lage ist, durch die von ihm aufgestoßene Tür auch hindurchzugehen, oder ob er sie angesichts der anhaltenden Widerstände wieder verschließt. Nicht nur für die Auseinandersetzung mit Nordkorea würde letzteres bedeuten, dass die Austragung von Konflikten weiterhin mit Mitteln erfolgt, die sich mehrheitlich als in der Sache unbefriedigend erwiesen haben.

Lieber Herr Ischinger,

Exzellenzen,

meine Damen und Herren,

Die Welt, in der wir Politik gestalten, ist geprägt von der Globalisierung. Die Globalisierung ist ein Faktum, keine Wahlmöglichkeit, der man sich verschließen könnte. Noch immer wird diese Globalisierung vor allem unter wirtschaftlichen Aspekten diskutiert. Das ist bestenfalls die halbe Wahrheit. Werte und Wissen globalisieren sich. Einsichten und Ansichten. Lebensstile globalisieren sich, ganz gewiss nicht immer zu unserer persönlichen Freude. Denn oft genug geht dieser Prozess auch mit kulturellen Verlusten einher.

Die Gewichte der internationalen Politik verschieben sich. Das war in der Geschichte immer wieder so. Aber doch noch nie mit solcher Geschwindigkeit wie heute.

Die Globalisierung verändert damit auch den Rahmen für unsere nationale und die internationale Sicherheit. Vielen Menschen hierzulande mag nicht gegenwärtig sein, wo genau Afghanistan oder Jemen auf der Weltkugel liegen. Aber die Entwicklungen dort betreffen uns unmittelbar. Verantwortungsvolle Außenpolitik muss sich dieser Konflikte annehmen.

Wo Probleme globaler werden, da muss auch Verantwortung globaler organisiert werden. Nur so können wir vermeiden, dass aus dem Prozess der Vernetzung durch Globalisierung eine Bedrohung unserer Sicherheit erwächst. Deshalb müssen wir die Antworten auf die Risiken der Weiterverbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen, auf radikale, fundamentalistische Ideologien, auf Terrorismus, Fanatismus und zerfallende Staaten, gemeinsam geben.

Die Globalisierung macht diese Probleme sichtbarer und undurchsichtiger zugleich. Nötiger denn je für vorausschauende Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik sind daher ein klarer Kompass und gemeinsam verabredete, verbindliche Regeln. Zum deutschen Kompass möchte ich drei Anmerkungen machen.

I.

Deutsche Außenpolitik ist wertegeleitet und interessenorientiert.

Das wird auch am institutionellen Fundament deutscher Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik deutlich. Die Europäische Union und das Nordatlantische Bündnis sind seit Jahrzehnten eine so verlässliche Grundlage deutscher Politik, weil sie eben mehr sind als Clubs ähnlich gelagerter Interessen. EU und NATO sind zuallererst Wertebündnisse.

Die transatlantische Freundschaft und Partnerschaft gehört zum festen Boden, auf dem wir stehen. Über den Atlantik hinweg bilden wir einen Raum gleicher Grundwerte. Wir teilen die besondere Wertschätzung für die Freiheit des Einzelnen.

Deutschlands Einsatz für die Universalität der Menschenrechte gehört dazu. Aber es ist keine Politik des erhobenen Zeigefingers. Mit dem unveräußerlichen Schutz der Menschenwürde zieht unser Grundgesetz die Lehren aus unserer eigenen Geschichte. Sie zu schützen ist Verpflichtung des Staates im Innern. Für sie beharrlich zu werben und sich überall auf der Welt für sie einzusetzen ist und bleibt eine Verpflichtung deutscher Außenpolitik.

Von unserem festen Wertefundament aus neue Partnerschaften zu entwickeln ist für mich der Schlüssel zu einer erfolgreichen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik im Zeitalter der Globalisierung.

Ich habe mich gefreut, dass mit meinem Kollegen Yang gestern zum ersten Mal ein chinesischer Außenminister hierher nach München zur Konferenz gekommen ist. Und ich freue mich ebenso, heute meinen Kollegen Sergej Lawrow neben mir zu wissen. Die strategische Partnerschaft mit Russland ist nicht nur unverzichtbar für die europäische Sicherheit, sondern auch für die Lösung globaler Probleme. Wir wollen diese Partnerschaft und wir wollen sie dort, wo uns gemeinsame Interessen verbinden, auch weiter ausbauen. Dazu gehört auch eine substanzielle Diskussion der Vorschläge von Präsident Medwedew zur europäischen Sicherheit.

Mit anderen aufstrebenden Mächten wie beispielsweise Brasilien, Indien oder Südafrika verbinden uns gemeinsame Interessen und Herausforderungen, aus denen wir stabile Partnerschaften schmieden müssen. Mit den Golfstaaten haben wir uns vergangene Woche in London auf gemeinsame Ansätze zur Stabilisierung des Jemen verständigt. Die Neuausrichtung des internationalen Afghanistan-Engagements haben wir im Kreis von über 70 Delegationen beschlossen.

An der Stabilisierung Afghanistans und an vielen anderen Friedensmissionen beteiligt sich Deutschland auf der Grundlage eines Mandats der Vereinten Nationen. Die VN sind nur so stark, wie es ihre Mitgliedstaaten zulassen. Aber sie bilden für uns einen unverzichtbaren, überwölbenden Rahmen für die internationale Sicherheit. Deutschland bleibt den Idealen der Vereinten Nationen genauso verpflichtet wie der konkreten Unterstützung für die vom Generalsekretär benannten Herausforderungen.

II.

Deutsche Außenpolitik setzt auf Kooperation statt auf Konfrontation.

Die europäische Einigung war die Lehre aus der Katastrophe des Nationalismus, aus der von Deutschland ausgehenden Selbstzerstörung unseres Kontinents. Das europäische Kooperationsmodell haben wir mitgeprägt, und es hat uns geprägt. Aber auch sein Erfolg ist nicht selbstverständlich. Beim Thema Europa reden viele darüber, was es kostet. Wir sollten mehr darüber reden, was es uns wert ist. Das geeinte Europa ist erst dann gesichert, wenn auch meine Generation, die Krieg, Leid und Hunger nie am eigenen Leib erfahren hat, fest zur europäischen Einigung steht. Dafür hat meine Generation die Chance, dieses Kooperationsmodell weit über Westeuropa hinaus auszubauen, vielleicht sogar auf den ganzen europäischen Kontinent.

Mit dem Lissaboner Vertrag haben wir ein neues Kapitel aufgeschlagen. Die Europäische Union ist demokratischer und parlamentarischer geworden. Lissabon ist kein Endpunkt, sondern ein Anfang.

So zeichnet der Vertrag eine gemeinsame Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik vor. Die Bundesregierung will auf diesem Weg vorangehen. Das langfristige Ziel ist der Aufbau einer europäischen Armee unter voller parlamentarischer Kontrolle. Die Europäische Union muss ihrer politischen Rolle als globaler Akteur gerecht werden. Sie muss eigenständig Krisenmanagement betreiben können und sie muss rasch, flexibel und im gemeinsamen Verbund handeln können.

Dafür muss sie aber auch in Zeiten knapper werdender Ressourcen Kräfte bündeln, Prioritäten setzen und Verantwortungen verteilen können.

Das im Lissaboner Vertrag vorgesehene Instrument der „Ständigen Strukturierten Zusammenarbeit“ gibt die Möglichkeit, mit einzelnen EU-Staaten voranzugehen, um die europäische Vision weiter zu entwickeln. Das europäische Projekt einer gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik wird ein Motor für das weitere Zusammenwachsen Europas sein.

Wir wollen ein starkes europäisches Krisenmanagement. Dies soll andere Sicherheitsstrukturen nicht ersetzen. Mehr Europa richtet sich gegen niemanden. Vor Europa muss sich niemand fürchten, aber auf Europa soll sich jeder verlassen können.

Die Gemeinsame Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik wird die europäische Antwort auf die Globalisierung sein. Sie ist der Beitrag für die euro-atlantische Sicherheitspartnerschaft.

Auch die NATO sucht nach neuen Antworten auf die Globalisierung. Wir unterstützen ihre Arbeit an einem neuen „Strategischen Konzept“, das Sicherheit in einem umfassenden politischen Zusammenhang sieht. Auch dies wird die euro-atlantische Sicherheitspartnerschaft stärken.

III.

Deutsche Außenpolitik ist Friedenspolitik.

Heute ist die unkontrollierte Weiterverbreitung von atomaren Waffen die wohl größte Bedrohung unserer Sicherheit. Der Nukleare Nichtverbreitungsvertrag aus den 60er Jahren war mehr als eine Festschreibung des status quo. Er enthält bis heute ein gegenseitiges Versprechen. Der Selbstverpflichtung zur Nichtverbreitung steht die Selbstverpflichtung der Atomwaffenstaaten zur Abrüstung gegenüber. Einerseits wollen wir eine Weiterverbreitung der Atomwaffenfähigkeit verhindern, andererseits die Arsenale dieser Waffen verringern.

Deshalb ist die Kontroverse um das iranische Nuklearprogramm auch keine regionale Angelegenheit, sondern eine Frage mit globalen Auswirkungen.

Der Iran hat das vertraglich verbriefte Recht zur friedlichen Nutzung der Kernenergie. Die Gruppe der E3+3 hat sogar weitreichende Unterstützung angeboten, um Iran dabei zu helfen, wenn dieser im Gegenzug den Nachweis des ausschließlich friedlichen Charakters seines Nuklearprogramms erbringt. Unsere Hand bleibt ausgestreckt, aber bisher greift sie ins Leere. Und auch nach dem gestrigen Tag kann ich bedauerlicherweise zu keiner anderen Einschätzung kommen. Wenn es wirklich einen neuen Ansatz zur Zusammenarbeit geben sollte, dann müssen den Worten aus dem Iran konkrete Taten folgen. Eine Einigung mit der Wiener Atomenergiebehörde über den Teheraner Forschungsreaktor wäre ein vertrauensbildender Schritt. Er wäre aber kein Ersatz für Verhandlungen, um den zivilen Charakter des Iranischen Nuklearprogramms sicher zu stellen. Eine atomare Bewaffnung Irans ist für uns nicht akzeptabel. Sie würde zu einer Destabilisierung der ganzen Region und zu einer womöglich fatalen Schwächung des Nichtverbreitungsregimes führen.

Die andere Seite der Medaille ist die Reduzierung der Atomwaffenarsenale. Wir unterstützen daher die laufenden amerikanisch-russischen Verhandlungen über eine Reduzierung der strategischen Waffen. Ein Erfolg dort wird auch positive Auswirkungen auf die im Mai anstehende Überprüfung des Nichtverbreitungsvertrages haben.

Abrüstung ist kein weltfremder Traum, sondern unter den Bedingungen der Globalisierung eine Notwendigkeit. Gerade erst haben wir in Berlin gemeinsam mit Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Helmut Schmidt, Richard von Weizsäcker – leider ohne den erkrankten Egon Bahr - und ihren amerikanischen Gegenübern Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, William Perry und George Shultz darüber gesprochen, wie in einem nächsten Schritt nicht nur die Zahl, sondern auch die militärische Bedeutung von Atomwaffen reduziert werden kann. Auch damit wollen wir das Fenster der Gelegenheit weiter aufstoßen.

Eingebettet in eine solche Strategie wollen wir uns auch eine deutsche Friedensdividende politisch erarbeiten. Die letzten Nuklearwaffen in Deutschland sind ein Relikt des Kalten Krieges. Sie haben keinen militärischen Sinn mehr. Deshalb setzt sich die Bundesregierung in Gesprächen mit unseren Partnern und Verbündeten dafür ein, die Bedingungen für einen Abzug zu schaffen. Dabei wollen wir auch mit Russland über vertrauensbildende Maßnahmen und eine Reduzierung seiner Waffen sprechen.

Nukleare Abrüstung darf aber nicht dazu führen, dass konventionelle Kriege wieder führbar werden. Wer eine atomwaffenfreie Welt, wer „Global Zero“ ernst meint, muss auch die konventionelle Rüstungskontrolle und Abrüstung mit einbeziehen. Wir wollen einer Erosion des Vertrages über die konventionellen Streitkräfte in Europa (KSE) aktiv entgegenwirken. Nukleare Abrüstung und konventionelle Abrüstung müssen Hand in Hand gehen.

IV.

Die Vorstellung einer Welt ohne Atomwaffen erscheint vielen als naiv. Aber nicht Abrüstung ist unverantwortlich, sondern ein Beharren auf dem status quo, das die neuen Risiken übersieht. Natürlich braucht Abrüstung einen langen Atem, aber warum soll sie nicht möglich sein?

Mein Jahrgang ist 1961. Damals wurde quer durch Berlin und Deutschland die Mauer gebaut. Manche hatten auch die Wiedervereinigung längst aufgegeben. Ich war noch keine 30, als der Freiheitswille von Millionen die Mauer zum Einsturz brachte. Visionen sind noch keine Politik, aber ohne Visionen kann Politik nicht gestalten.

Wir stehen am Anfang eines neuen Jahrzehnts. Die Bundesregierung wird nach Kräften ihren Beitrag dazu leisten, dass es zu einem Jahrzehnt der Abrüstung wird.

Ich danke Ihnen für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Charillon. And it is a great pleasure to be here at this historic setting, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss a matter of great consequence to the United States, France, and every country on this continent and far beyond the borders: the future of European security.

Now, this is not only here at L’Ecole Militaire an architectural and historical treasure, one that when I was much younger I would walk by and looked at as I wandered the neighborhoods. But this is also a place that speaks to the long and proud partnership between the French and American militaries on behalf of our mutual defense and freedom. Two hundred and fifty years ago, young men from across France began arriving here to be trained as soldiers and officers of the French military. And only a few years later, you stood with us during our war of independence. Soldiers from both nations fought together to liberate Paris 65 years ago. Today, they fight together in Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaida and the syndicate of terrorists and offer the Afghan people the hope of a stable future.

As founding members of the NATO Alliance, our countries have worked side by side for decades to build a strong and secure Europe and to defend and promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. And I am delighted that we are working even more closely now that France is fully participating in NATO’s integrated command structure. I thank President Sarkozy for his leadership and look forward to benefiting from the counsel of our French colleagues as together we chart NATO’s future.

Today, thanks to the partnership between our nation and others, Europe is stronger than ever. The bitter divides of the Cold War have been replaced by unity, partnership, and peace. Russia is no longer our adversary but often a partner on key global issues. Nations that once were members of the Warsaw Pact and eyed NATO with suspicion are now active members of our Alliance. And the European Union has grown to include 27 nations, from the British Isles to the Baltic states, and is poised to become even more dynamic with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. As I recently expressed to the new EU High Representative Baroness Catherine Ashton, the challenges we face in our Euro-Atlantic relationship demand collective responses, and the European Union is an invaluable and increasingly effective force for global progress.

So the accomplishments of the past half century have showcased how vital European security is, not only to the individual nations, but to the world. It is, after all, more than a collection of countries linked by history and geography. It is a model for the transformative power of reconciliation, cooperation, and community.

But at the same time, much important work remains unfinished. The transition to democracy is incomplete in parts of Europe and Eurasia. Arms control regimes that once served us well are now fraying. And in too many places, economic opportunity is still too narrow and shallow.

Adding to these ongoing challenges, the institutions that guarded Europe’s and North America’s security during the 20^th century were not designed with 21^st century threats in mind. New dangers have emerged, such as global terrorism, including cyber terrorism and nuclear terrorism; climate change; global criminal networks that traffic in weapons, drugs, and people; threats to Europe’s energy supply, which, if exploited, could destabilize economies and stoke regional and even global conflict. Tanks, bombers, and missiles are necessary but no longer sufficient to keep our people safe. Our arsenal must also include tools that protect cyber and energy networks, halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, counter the threats of terrorism and destructive ideologies, in part by confronting the political, economic, and social conditions that give rise to such ideologies in the first place.

The transatlantic partnership has been both a cornerstone of global security and a powerful force for global progress. Now we are called to address some of the great challenges in human history. And to meet them, we are required to modernize and strengthen our partnership.

New thinking is underway on both sides of the Atlantic. NATO is revising its Strategic Concept to prepare for the alliance’s summit at the end of this year here at (inaudible). I know there’s a lot of thinking going on about strategic threats and how to meet them. Next week, at the Munich Security Conference, leaders from across the continent will address urgent security and foreign policy challenges. France has urged all of us for a high-level discussion to address European security. Other nations have proposed new approaches and agreements. Russia has recently suggested both a new European security treaty and a new NATO-Russia treaty.

The United States, too, has also been studying ways to strengthen European security and, therefore our own security, and to extend it to foster security on a global scale. Today, I’d like to discuss the core principles that guide the United States today as we consider the future of European security and our role in shaping, strengthening, and sustaining it.

But first, let me address some questions raised in recent months about the depth of the United States commitment to European security. Some wonder whether we understand the urgent need to improve security in Europe. Others have voiced concern that the Obama Administration is so focused on foreign policy challenges elsewhere in the world that Europe has receded in our list of priorities.

Well, in fact, European security remains an anchor of U.S. foreign and security policy. A strong Europe is critical to our security and our prosperity. Much of what we hope to accomplish globally depends on working together with Europe. And so we are working with European allies and partners to help bring stability to Afghanistan and try to take on the dangers posed by Iran’s nuclear ambition. We are working with Europe to help meet the crisis of climate change and revitalize the global economy. And we’re working in the fight against extreme poverty, gender-based violence, and pandemic disease. Human rights and universal values, shared as part of our common history between Europe and the United States, must always be a cornerstone of our security efforts, because if Europe is not secure, Europe cannot lead. And we need European leadership in the 21^st century.

But European security is far more than a strategic interest of my country. It is also an expression of our values. We stand with Europe today, as we have stood with Europe for decades, because enduring bonds connect our nations and our peoples. We are united by an understanding of the importance of liberty and freedom. We have fought and died for each other’s liberty and freedom. These are ties that cannot and never should be broken. And we seek both to venerate and reinforce them by helping to maintain peace and security in Europe, today and all the tomorrows to come.

But as we move forward, a set of core principles will guide us in our approach and in our joint effort. First, the cornerstone of security is the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. Much of the suffering that occurred in Europe during the 20^th century emanated from a failure to respect borders or to honor the right of all nations to pursue their own foreign policies, choose their own allies, and provide for their own self-defense. These are fundamental rights of free nations and must and will remain vigilant in our efforts to oppose any attempt to undermine them.

The United States has demonstrated our adherence to this principle in recent years with our support for new European democracies seeking to chart their own political futures, free from external intimidation or aggression. We have repeatedly called on Russia to honor the terms of its ceasefire agreement with Georgia, and we refuse to recognize Russia’s claims of independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. More broadly, we object to any spheres of influence claimed in Europe in which one country seeks to control another’s future. Our security depends upon nations being able to choose their own destiny.

For years, Russia has expressed a sense of insecurity as NATO and the EU have expanded. But we strongly believe that the enlargement of both has increased security, stability, and prosperity across the continent, and that this, in turn, has actually increased Russia’s security and prosperity.

Furthermore, the right of all countries to enter into alliances of their own choosing has been endorsed by Russia and all members of the OSCE at the 1999 Istanbul summit. NATO must and will remain open to any country that aspires to become a member and can meet the requirements of membership. But we do not seek to create divisions between neighbors and partners. Russia’s confidence in its security enhances our own.

So that brings us to our second principle: Security in Europe must be indivisible. For too long, the public discourse around Europe’s security has been fixed on geographical and political divides. Some have looked at the continent even now and seen Western and Eastern Europe, old and new Europe, NATO and non-NATO Europe, EU and non-EU Europe. The reality is that there are not many Europes; there is only one Europe. And it is a Europe that includes the United States as its partner. And it is a Europe that includes Russia.

For in this century, security cannot be a zero-sum game. The security of all nations is intertwined. And we have a responsibility to work to enhance each other’s security, in part by engaging with others on these new ideas and approaches.

Now, the Russian Government under President Medvedev has put forth proposals for new security treaties in Europe. Indivisibility of security is a key feature of those proposals. And that is a goal we share, along with other ideas in the Russian proposals which reaffirm principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the NATO-Russia Founding Act. However, we believe that these common goals are best pursued in the context of existing institutions, such as the OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council, rather than by negotiating new treaties, as Russia has suggested – a very long and cumbersome process.

I want to emphasize, though, even though we may have differences with Russia, the United States is very proud of what our two countries have accomplished together during the past year. The Obama Administration inherited a deteriorating relationship with Russia, and we immediately set out to build a more substantive and constructive relationship based mutual respect and mutual interests. Together, we have made progress on a range of such matters, including helping to address Iran’s nuclear program through the P-5+1, sharing a concern about stabilizing Afghanistan, confronting North Korea’s defiance of its international obligations, negotiating a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, tackling non-traditional threats such as pandemic disease, cyber warfare, and the trafficking of children.

We will build upon this foundation as we seek to revitalize the NATO-Russia Council, so it can make concrete contributions to areas where we are working together and need to be doing even more, such as in missile defense, counternarcotics, and Afghanistan. And we are committed to exploring ways that NATO and Russia can improve their partnership by better reassuring each other about respective actions and intentions, through greater military transparency, the sharing of information, and other means of building trust and confidence. Now, I don’t need to state, but I will, that the United States and Russia will not always agree. We have different histories, different experiences and perspectives. Our interests will not always overlap. But when we disagree, we will seek constructive ways to manage our differences.

Third, we will maintain an unwavering commitment to the pledge enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty that an attack on one is an attack on all. When France and our other NATO allies invoked Article 5 in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11^th, 2001, it was a proclamation to the world that our promise to each other was not rhetorical, but real. And the people of Europe brought great comfort to the people of the United States by reminding us that even in such a difficult hour, we were not alone. I was a senator representing the state of New York at that time, and I well remember the extraordinary outpouring of support that the people of New York specifically received. And for that, I thank you. And I assure you and all members of NATO that our commitment to Europe’s defense is equally strong.

As proof of that commitment, we will continue to station American troops in Europe, both to deter attacks and respond quickly if any occur. We are working with our allies to ensure that NATO has the plans it needs for responding to new and evolving contingencies. We are engaged in productive discussions with our European allies about building a new missile defense architecture that will defend all of NATO territory against ballistic missile attack. And we are serious about exploring ways to cooperate with Russia to develop missile defenses that enhance the security of all of Europe, including Russia.

Missile defense, we believe, will make this continent a safer place. That safety could extend to Russia, if Russia decides to cooperate with us. It is an extraordinary opportunity for us to work together to build our mutual security.

In the 21^st century, the spirit of collective defense must also include non-traditional threats. We believe NATO’s new Strategic Concept must address these new threats. Energy security is a particularly pressing priority. Countries vulnerable to energy cut-offs face not only economic consequences but strategic risks as well. And I welcome the recent establishment of the U.S.-EU Energy Council, and we are determined to support Europe in its efforts to diversify its energy supplies.

Fourth, we are committed to practicing transparency in our dealings in Europe, and we call on other nations to do the same.

In this interconnected age, and particularly on this integrated continent, a threat that originates in one country can quickly become a regional or even global crisis. To keep Europe safe, we must keep the channels of communication open by being forthright about our policies and approaches.

That begins with transparency. The United States supports a more open exchange of military data, including visits to military sites and observation of military activities and exercises because when nations are uncertain about the military capabilities of their neighbors, that uncertainty can foster suspicion and even lead to conflict. As we work together to advance security across the continent, we must be able to trust each other enough to share information that could in real time make a difference in protecting the lives of our citizens.

To this end, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty needs our attention. For more than 20 years, the CFE Treaty has been a cornerstone of conventional arms control, transparency, and confidence-building. But this valuable regime is in danger of crumbling. Two years ago, Russia suspended the implementation of the CFE Treaty, while the United States and our allies continue to do so. The Russia-Georgia war in 2008 was not only a tragedy but has created a further obstacle to moving forward.

We must not allow the transparency and stability that the CFE regime has provided to erode further. We should revive discussions on the way forward with our allies, Russia, and other signatories. Our goal should be a modern security framework that takes into account developments in Europe since the original treaty was drafted, limits military deployments, and strengthens the principles of territorial integrity, non-first use of force, the right of host countries to consent to stationing foreign troops in their territory.

It is only through such an approach that we can provide the reassurance that no country is secretly preparing its forces to attack another. I meet with foreign ministers and defense ministers and heads of state on a regular, ongoing basis. And there is still a great deal of concern on the part of Central and Eastern Europeans that something may be happening they’re not aware of, that some action may be taken that is directed at them. So to achieve our goal of greater transparency, we will consult closely with our allies on how we can best put this fundamental principle into practice.

Fifth, people everywhere have the right to live free from the fear of nuclear destruction.

The nuclear arms race that characterized the Cold War cast a shadow over the lives of people everywhere, especially those living in Europe and the United States. I remember very well as a child doing drills in my school that, in retrospect, were absurd but were meant to prepare us in the event of a nuclear attack. Getting under one’s desk, for example. Well today, the United States and Russia are close to concluding a new START treaty to dramatically reduce the size of our strategic nuclear arsenals. But now we face increased threats – that nuclear materials will fall into the wrong hands or that certain states will develop or even choose to use them.

In his speech in Prague last year, President Obama declared the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and we will guarantee that defense to our allies. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal. And as we do so, we will spare no effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to secure existing stockpiles and materials.

In April in Washington, President Obama will host a Nuclear Security Summit to draw high-level attention to the threat posed by nuclear terrorism and to galvanize support for tough measures to secure vulnerable nuclear material across the globe. And in May, we will reaffirm and reinforce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at its review conference. And we continue to work with other nations and the United Nations to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials to terrorists and non-nuclear states.

We will seek to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. And we are conducting a comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review to chart a new course that strengthens deterrence and reassurance for the United States and our allies while reducing the role and number of the nuclear weapons we have.

We will continue our intensive efforts to prevent Iran to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. And I applaud President Sarkozy’s leadership on this issue, which will continue when France assumes the presidency of the United Nations Security Council next month.

Sixth and finally, true security entails not only peaceful relations between states but opportunities and rights for individuals who live within them.

A secure nation defends human rights and allows its citizens to select their leaders. It allows citizens to express their views freely and participate fully in public debates, both in person and online. It offers its citizens the opportunity to live in healthy communities, receive an education, hold a job, raise a family if they choose, travel freely, and make the most of their God-given potential.

Development, democracy, and human rights comprise a mutually reinforcing cycle that is critical to security everywhere. When that cycle is broken, a nation is not secure. The essential building blocks for long-term progress and prosperity are missing. And we have seen with countries such as Yemen that one nation’s struggle to maintain order and provide for its people has consequences beyond its borders. A country that stifles its people’s voices, suppresses dissent, and asserts authoritarian control over citizens, is not a strong country but a weak country, no matter the size of its army or the scale of its ambitions.

Now, Europe understands this, that security is about more than military might, that it is also about human potential. In Europe, security is provided by an array of institutions – including NATO, the European Union, the OSCE – that provide the full range of tools to meet common challenges.

Consider the former Communist countries of Central Europe, now democracies that offer their citizens a better quality of life. They were drawn to the EU because of the political, economic, and social opportunities it represents. They received legal, social, and technical assistance in building democratic institutions and the rule of law. They inherited the riches of a single market and the unifying experience of a common European identity. These are such powerful forces for progress and stability. Europe has harnessed them through the creation of effective institutions. So now the United States works with NATO, the EU, and the OSCE to extend this kind of comprehensive human security to other places.

We are continuing the enterprise that we began at the end of the Cold War to expand the zone of democracy and stability. We have worked together this year to complete the effort we started in the 1990s to help bring peace and stability to the Balkans. And we are working closely with the EU to support the six countries that the EU engages through its Eastern Partnership initiative.

We stand with the people of Ukraine as they choose their next elected president in the coming week, an important step in Ukraine’s journey toward democracy, stability, and integration into Europe. And we are devoting ourselves to efforts to resolve enduring conflicts, including in the Caucasus and on Cyprus.

Our work extends beyond Europe as well. With the EU, we are fighting poverty and strengthening institutions in Yemen, Haiti, and Pakistan, among others. With NATO and other European partners, we’re working side by side to encourage accountable, effective governments

in Afghanistan. European and American voices speak as one to denounce the gross violations of human rights in Iran. European and American governments and non-governmental actors operate together and in parallel to promote economic and democratic development in Africa.

And we look forward to doing even more together as the EU develops its capacities for global engagement, including by sending its own highly qualified diplomats to serve alongside their counterparts from individual European nations.

Our combined efforts can help put an end to the scourge of human trafficking, a threat to public safety and a crime that degrades and dehumanizes its victims.

We believe that our commitment to expanding opportunity compels us to reach out to those who too often go unseen and unsupported, particularly in countries marked by poverty, political oppression, and violent extremism. Women and girls, who are one of the world’s greatest untapped resources, deserve our investment in their potential. There’ve been so many studies about how raising the status of women produces greater development and greater stability.

We also strengthened – we wish to strengthen the ability of the OSCE to defend and promote human rights in the world. The commitment to human rights enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act is one of the best things that the Euro-Atlantic community has accomplished together. Now we are called to renew that commitment by empowering the OSCE to increase its work in the world.

So we are coming forward with proposals for strengthening its efforts in three areas – military, economic and environmental, and human rights. We support the creation of an OSCE crisis prevention mechanism that, in situations of tension between OSCE states, would empower the OSCE to offer rapid humanitarian relief, help negotiate ceasefires, and provide impartial monitoring. We also propose that the OSCE chair-in-office have the capacity to facilitate consultations in the case of serious energy or environmental disruption, dispatch special representatives to investigate reports of egregious human rights violations, and provide a forum for emergency consultations.

Looking back on all we have achieved together over the past 65 years, it is remarkable how much has been accomplished – Europe emerging from the ruins of war to become a showcase for peace and opportunity and prosperity. The condition of modern Europe, however, is not a miracle handed to the people of Europe. It is the result of years of careful, courageous work by leaders and citizens, in this country and others, to create institutions and erect policies that brought together former adversaries and united them in common cause. Now it is our turn. It is our responsibility to continue that tradition of leadership and renew those institutions for a new era. As we proceed, let us remember why we began this project in the first place, and why it is still vitally important today.

This partnership is about so much more than strengthening our security. At its core, it is about defending and advancing our values in the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only defend those values in the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only defend those values, but promote them; that we are not only on defense, but on offense. There is so much that the West has to be proud of and to lay a claim to.

We believe and we have the evidence to prove it that democracy works and can deliver for citizens if leaders are committed to the enterprise, and if democracies are about more than just elections; if we build institutions of independent judiciaries and free media and protection of minority rights and so much else, that we have worked and labored to create.

We are closer than ever to achieving the goal that has inspired European and American leaders and citizens – not only a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified and prosperous, but a Euro-Atlantic alliance that is greater than the sum of its parts, that stands for these values that have stood the test of time, and worked strategically to move toward a vision that may need to be updated and modernized, but is timely. The United States is honored to stand by your side as we take the next steps towards fulfilling that vision. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.) Thank you very much (inaudible) key speech and (inaudible). (In French.)

QUESTION: (In French.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Here comes a microphone.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Madam Secretary, we hear very often that America and the EU should be complementary with (inaudible) that have not yet reached this complementarity. What should be, then, from your views to achieve better complementarity between these two organizations?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. I would start by saying that these, of course, are decisions for the Europeans to make with respect to the EU. When it comes to NATO, I think that greater integration on the European continent provides even more opportunity for the level of cooperation to increase. We value our bilateral relationship and we will always maintain them, stay focused on them, because even in a time of greater European integration, there are obviously differences when it comes to certain national matters that have to be respected.

But I think, given the complexity of the world today, closer cooperation and more complementarity between the EU and NATO is in all of our interests to try to forge common policies – economic and development and political and legal on the one hand in the EU, and principally security on the other hand in NATO. But as I said in my remarks, they are no longer separated. It’s hard to say that security is only about what it was when NATO was formed, and the EU has no role to play in security issues.

Take, for example, energy security. I mean, it would be the EU’s responsibility to create policies that would provide more independence and protections from intimidation when it comes to energy markets from member nations. But I can also see how in certain cases respecting energy, there may be a role for NATO as well. So as we refashion, rethink the way forward in this century, I think we should respect and honor the foundation institutions, but we should be unafraid to ask a lot of the questions about how can they function better.

And certainly, when one thinks of NATO as a response in the Cold War to the Warsaw Pact nations which no longer exist in the form that it was, and with the new threats that we have to confront, the strategic review that is now ongoing by NATO which will be presented at the NATO summit in Lisbon at the end of this year should be a hard rethinking. I mean, if it just repeats that we have to do better what we’ve always done, it will be a lost opportunity. And under the Lisbon treaty, with more focus and specific leadership attached to foreign policy and development assistance, there will be a way to better coordinate.

So I think that your question is a very timely one and one that calls us to be creative and to work closely together and hopefully make the changes that are called for.

QUESTION: (In French.)

QUESTION: I’m an American so I’ll put my question in English. Thank you for coming, Madam Secretary. Amy Green, Ph.D. student in political science here in France. Given the interconnectivity of global challenges, it seems evident that the United States and Europe, in the context of NATO, can’t solve all the problems alone. Is there support in the Administration for extending the boundaries of NATO to non-Western countries, emerging powers like Brazil, India, other democracies that might fulfill their criteria?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think there is an awareness of the global nature of a lot of these problems, but a great reluctance to go beyond the geographic reach of NATO. Now, we still have work to do in the Balkans. There are issues regarding Georgia and Ukraine’s aspirations. So there are still a lot of areas that require attention from NATO. But your question really raises an important issue: How do we cooperate across geographic distance with countries in other hemispheres, different geopolitical challenges? And there is a modern living example of that with the NATO ISAF commitment in Afghanistan.

There are many reasons on the substance, I would argue, why this is an important mission for NATO. But clearly, there were more countries than just NATO members who have a stake in a stable Afghanistan. So as Australia sends troops, we are working through how to coordinate with non-NATO members. And I think that in addition to the substantive commitments, there will be a number of lessons learned from how that worked and what didn’t work going forward.

In many ways, it’s quite remarkable, the success of this alliance. Yesterday at the London conference on Afghanistan, as you know, the United States, under President Obama, has agreed to put 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan. And member nations, NATO and ISAF – the international partners – have come up with a total of 9,000 more troops. How you integrate commands, how you utilize the different contributions that countries are making is a leadership and management challenge.

But I think it’s an important test for the world. NATO is leading the way, but NATO has to determine in what ways it can cooperate with others. I think that the world that we face of failing states, non-state actors, networks of terrorists, rogue regimes – North Korea being a prime example – really test the international community. And it’s a test we have to pass. Now, there are some who say this is too complicated, it is out of area, it is not our responsibility. But given the nature of the threats we face, I don’t think that’s an adequate response.

Take cyber security, for example. We have to figure out how to cooperate not just in physical space, but in virtual space. The threats from cyber security breaches, concerted attacks on networks and countries, are likely to cross borders. We have to know how to defend against them and we have to enlist nations who are likeminded to work with. Similarly, with energy problems, attacks on pipelines, attacks on container ships, attacks on electric grids will have consequences far beyond boundaries. And it won’t just be NATO nations. NATO nations border non-NATO nations.

So how do we begin to re-imagine the world that we’re in, not just try to keep adding to the structure of the world we inherited? When you mention countries like Brazil and India, how do we find common cause? Now, the U.S. peacekeeping missions are a very important way to combine military under UN military leadership for countries that might not be able to take on a mission themselves, but with combined capacity, can. Brazil, under a Brazilian general, has done an excellent job in leading the UN peacekeeping operations in Haiti for a number of years, providing the only source of solid, sustainable security as they work to train a police force. There’s no army in Haiti. So honing one’s skills so that they could be put to work, I think, will be one of the responsibilities we have to address.

And finally, there’s a tremendous opportunity for us to improve our disaster mitigation and response abilities. We have a lot of common desire to respond to disasters, as we’ve seen in the wake of Haiti. Countries immediately sprang into action. I commend France for the excellent response and the aid that was sent. The disaster relief could not have been done solely by civilians. It’s impossible. The disaster consequences were so profound that without military assets, there is no way food, water, or rescue missions could have been delivered.

So how do we better coordinate? No matter whose military it is, no matter whose flag it’s under, how do we better coordinate? How do we think this through? And that is something that countries across the world should be interested in addressing. So there are so many implications of what we must do, and I think it’s going to require leadership from both military and civilian experts to help us find our way forward.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, my name is Michel (inaudible). I’m president here at (inaudible) studies here, military school and the institute of higher national defense studies.

I have a question about China: China is becoming a major global problem; I think one of your first trips was to China, and not only in economic terms. So which is the new – where is the best framework, institutional framework to not only accommodate China, but to engage it? Is it United Nations? Is it G-20, is it G-2, or EU-China bilateral relations, or maybe a mix of all that? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think your last point is the right point. It needs to be a mix of all that. I think that there are many different institutional arrangements that would be beneficial to include China in. There are Asia-Pacific institutions that – like ASEAN, APEC, East Asia summits – that are important for China to play a role in and to be better connected with their neighbors. The G-20 is an attempt to better manage the range of problems that no existing institution on its own can do. The G-8 left too many people out. The UN is often not able to function on an ongoing basis the way that we would like. But the UN also has a tremendous capacity to bring China in around the table.

So I think that the short answer is we should try many different approaches. It will be increasingly important for China to become more transparent about its military ambitions and budgets. It is difficult to create and sustain military-to-military engagement with China, but I think every institution you just named, plus bilateral relationships, should try to include that. It will take time, but I think it’s very important.

I think that China has certainly made clear that it’s willing to participate more on a range of issues than it had before. During our negotiations about sanctions for North Korea, obviously the United States, South Korea, and Japan were committed to moving forward to try to alter North Korea’s behavior. But after study and consultations, so was China – a remarkably positive step for them to take. And they have been equally responsive with respect to the enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1874 which embodies those sanctions.

With respect to Iran, thus far, the P-5+1, which as you know is France, Germany, United Kingdom, EU, United States, Russia, and China, has been united. Now, as we move away from the engagement track, which has not produced the results that some had hoped for, and move toward the pressure and sanctions track, China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the Gulf, from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supply, that it will produce an arms race; other countries will feel the necessity to seek their own nuclear weapons programs; Israel will feel an existential threat to its very existence. All of that is incredibly dangerous.

So the argument we and others are making to China is we understand that right now, that is something that seems counterproductive to you, sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs, but think about the longer-term implications.

We have in the last year worked very hard to establish what we call a positive, cooperative, comprehensive relationship with China. We will always have disagreements, as we will with probably any country, even a close friend like France. But with China, we want the relationship to continue despite the disagreements. So that’s – for example, if we arrange a meeting between our President and the Dalai Lama, that is a difference in perspective, a respect for his religious leadership, and we do not think it should derail the relationship.

But this is kind of a learning experience for all of us, including China. China has emerged as a global leader on the world stage at a time when the world is so much more complicated. I mean, if we were in a bipolar world, everybody would know what they were supposed to do. But we’re not. So China is, like the rest of us, trying to figure out how do you protect your national interests and yet recognize the consequences for your national interests from actions outside your borders, and cooperate with others to achieve goals that actually are in your interests? It’s a complicated equation for all of us today.

We had an incident I’m sure you’ve read about concerning Google and concerns about actions constraining information, which we very forthrightly presented to the Chinese in public and in private, but I made the additional point that as China grows, they will have companies that will operate globally, that will need the same kind of protection that we expect for our companies operating globally.

So we’re asking for kind of an over-the-horizon view, which is always the hardest thing to do in politics, because politics is about the moment, unfortunately, too often. But I think that it’s this kind of engagement and respectful sharing of views that is at the heart of any kind of coordination or cooperation with China.

QUESTION: Bonjour. So I’m (inaudible), first-year medical student. So I would like to know your opinion about the European army that France and Germany have been trying to build for the last 50 years and to know the opinion of the U.S. about this.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, this is a European matter. It certainly is a French and German matter. And I respect the decision making of allies like France and Germany, so it is really within those two countries’ sphere of authority.

I think the U.S. view is that we would not want to see anything supplant NATO. If it were able to supplement NATO, that would be different. But given the strains that already exist on NATO’s budget and military expenditures in our countries, we think it’s smarter to figure out how to use the resources we have more effectively, use the alliance that we’re members of in a more strategic way. But again, that is ultimately a decision of the French and the German people.

QUESTION: Madam, hi, (inaudible). So you mentioned among the common challenges extreme poverty and importance to strengthen the potential of women and girls around the world. And I agree that a common value that United States and Europe share is a shared vision of women, of women rights. And I know that you were a supporter of Muhammad Yunus activities in microcredit and that President Obama’s mother was a pioneer in this. So what can be the role of a cooperation between Europe and the United States on this particular aspect?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s a wonderful question because one of the areas that we would like to see greater cooperation between Europe and the United States is in development. We think that if we were more thoughtful about how we utilized our own national resources in coordination with other nations’ resources, we would get greater results. If you take any country that is a poor developing country, there’s a great spirit of generosity among Europeans and Americans. We actually help people who have no other capacity to help themselves, who are also not in countries that we consider strategically important to us, but who are suffering. And I would hope that on a bilateral basis, and now particularly through the EU with the post-Lisbon structure, we could be thoughtful about how to do that.

I’ve talked a lot about this with Foreign Minister Kouchner, who of course has a great history in healthcare, and France has done wonderful work on healthcare in Afghanistan, wonderful work. The French hospital that the people of France built is now training Afghan doctors and nurses and taking care of so many people.

Well, would it make sense for the United States to rush in and build our own hospital? No, it would make sense for us to support the French initiative. Yet, at the same time, we’re doing a lot of investment now in agriculture, because in Afghanistan, 60 to 70 percent of the people make their living from agriculture. And we not only want to enhance their incomes; we want to turn them away from poppy production. So we’re sending agriculture experts, we’re helping to build irrigation systems, we’re providing new, stronger seeds. We’re doing a lot. So would it make sense for France to have a parallel program? No. But to help us and bring the expertise is absolutely welcomed.

So when it comes to women and girls in some of the countries that are most at risk, there is so much to be done, it’s almost overwhelming. I was in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is the epicenter of gender and sexual-based violence against girls and women in the world right now, and there is a lot that we have to do because there is so little to start with. So we should plan together and try to figure out how we can influence the government, the military, provide protection for people on the ground and provide treatment for those who have been assaulted. Bernard Kouchner and I worked together in the wake of the terrible instance in Guinea, where government-sponsored murders and rapes took place at a peaceful demonstration. And we worked very closely together with African countries to try to work out a way to resolve the conflict without bloodshed, because we knew that among the first victims would be girls and women again.

So our hope is that through our bilateral aid, we cooperate more, through multilateral institutions like the World Bank or UNDP or UNIFEM or other – UNICEF, et cetera, we really begin to put in systems of accountability to absolutely evaluate outcomes. That’s harder to do than it sounds, but we must take that on because we owe it to our citizens and our taxpayers to say look, we want to help the women of the Congo or we want to help build schools in Afghanistan, and we can show you what we’re accomplishing. We owe it to those people, especially in these economic times of difficulty when so many of our own citizens are worried and suffering.

But there’s a great opportunity here, so I think that we should work together. And obviously, from my perspective, focusing on girls and women makes a great deal of sense because it’s the fastest way to get money into the hands of children, family members, communities, and I think it’s an obligation and responsibility as well.

THE PRESIDENT:  Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union.  For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility.  And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -– that America was always destined to succeed.  But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt.  When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain.  These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union.  And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people. 

Again, we are tested.  And again, we must answer history's call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt.  Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression.  So we acted -– immediately and aggressively.  And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains.  One in 10 Americans still cannot find work.  Many businesses have shuttered.  Home values have declined.  Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard.  And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades –- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college. 

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now.  They're not new.  These struggles are the reason I ran for President.  These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois.  I hear about them in the letters that I read each night.  The toughest to read are those written by children -– asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough.  Some are frustrated; some are angry.  They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.  They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness.  They know we can't afford it.  Not now.  

So we face big and difficult challenges.  And what the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics.  For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared:  a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life. 

You know what else they share?  They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity.  After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors.  One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged." 

It's because of this spirit -– this great decency and great strength -– that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight.  (Applause.)  Despite our hardships, our union is strong.  We do not give up.  We do not quit.  We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit.  In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.  (Applause.)   
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.   

It begins with our economy. 

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis.  It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout.  I hated it -- (applause.)  I hated it.  You hated it.  It was about as popular as a root canal.  (Laughter.)  

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -– I would do what was necessary.  And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today.  More businesses would certainly have closed.  More homes would have surely been lost. 

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program.  And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable.  And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.  (Applause.)  Most but not all.

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks.  (Applause.)  Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea.  But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.  (Applause.)

Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed. 

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Now, let me repeat:  We cut taxes.  We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.  (Applause.)  We cut taxes for small businesses.  We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers.  We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children.  We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.  (Applause.)

I thought I'd get some applause on that one.  (Laughter and applause.)

As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers.  And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person.  Not a single dime.  (Applause.)

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed.  (Applause.)  Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers.  Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders.  (Applause.)  And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act.  (Applause.)  That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill.  (Applause.)  Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster.  But you don't have to take their word for it.  Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act.  Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.  Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all. 

There are stories like this all across America.  And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.  Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value.  Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.   

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response.  That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight.  (Applause.)  

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses.  (Applause.)  But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers. 

We should start where most new jobs do –- in small businesses, companies that begin when -- (applause) -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss.  Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow.  But when you talk to small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies.  Financing remains difficult for small businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.)  I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit
-– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages.  (Applause.)  While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.  (Applause.) 

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow.  (Applause.)  From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete.  There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act.  (Applause.)  There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information.  (Applause.) 

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs.  (Applause.)  And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America.  (Applause.)

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps.  (Applause.)  As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will.  (Applause.)  They will.  (Applause.)  People are out of work.  They're hurting.  They need our help.  And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.  (Applause.)

But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years.  The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.  

We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade –- what some call the "lost decade" -– where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation. 

From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious.  I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while. 

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait?  How long should America put its future on hold?  (Applause.)

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse.  Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy.  Germany is not waiting.  India is not waiting.  These nations -- they're not standing still.  These nations aren't playing for second place.  They're putting more emphasis on math and science.  They're rebuilding their infrastructure.  They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.  Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America.  (Applause.) 

As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

Now, one place to start is serious financial reform.  Look, I am not interested in punishing banks.  I'm interested in protecting our economy.  A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes.  But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy. 

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions.  (Applause.)  We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.  

Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes.  (Applause.)  And the lobbyists are trying to kill it.  But we cannot let them win this fight.  (Applause.)  And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right.  We've got to get it right.  (Applause.)

Next, we need to encourage American innovation.  Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -– (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched.  And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy.  You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -– in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives.  And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.  (Applause.)  It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.  (Applause.)  It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.  (Applause.)  And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.  (Applause.)

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year.  (Applause.)  And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate.  (Applause.) 

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy.  I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation.  (Applause.)

Third, we need to export more of our goods.  (Applause.)  Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America.  (Applause.)  So tonight, we set a new goal:  We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America.  (Applause.)  To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.  (Applause.)

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are.  If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores.  (Applause.)  But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules.  (Applause.)  And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia.  (Applause.)

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.  (Applause.)

Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools.  And the idea here is simple:  Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success.  Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city.  In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education.  (Applause.)  And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential. 

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states.  Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job.  That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.  (Applause.) 

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans.  (Applause.)  Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants.  (Applause.)  And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.  (Applause.) 

And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -– (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem. 

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class.  That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families.  That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg.  That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment –- their home.  The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.     

This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages.  (Applause.)  And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.  (Applause.)  Yes, we do.  (Applause.)

Now, let's clear a few things up.  (Laughter.)  I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt.  And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.  (Laughter.)  I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families –- even those with insurance -– who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans.  The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry.  It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market.  It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care. 

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.)  Thank you.  She gets embarrassed.  (Laughter.)

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.  It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses.  And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.  (Applause.)

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became.  I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.  And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

But I also know this problem is not going away.  By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance.  Millions will lose it this year.  Our deficit will grow.  Premiums will go up.  Patients will be denied the care they need.  Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether.  I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber.  (Applause.)

So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed.  There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo.  But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.  (Applause.)  Let me know.  Let me know.  (Applause.)  I'm eager to see it. 

Here's what I ask Congress, though:  Don't walk away from reform.  Not now.  Not when we are so close.  Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.  (Applause.)  Let's get it done.  Let's get it done.  (Applause.)

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves.  It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing.  So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. 

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion.  (Applause.)  By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.  Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.  On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget.  All this was before I walked in the door.  (Laughter and applause.)

Now -- just stating the facts.  Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit.  But we took office amid a crisis.  And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.  That, too, is a fact.

I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do.  But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions.  The federal government should do the same.  (Applause.)  So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.  (Applause.)  Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected.  But all other discretionary government programs will.  Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't.  And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.  (Applause.)  

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work.  We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year.  To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts.  But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year.  We just can't afford it.  (Applause.) 

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office.  More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket.  That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad.  (Applause.)  This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem.  The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. 

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission.  So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.  (Applause.)  And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.  (Applause.) 

Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting.  And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger.  That's how budgeting works.  (Laughter and applause.)  But understand –- understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -– all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes. 

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -– that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.  The problem is that's what we did for eight years.  (Applause.)  That's what helped us into this crisis.  It's what helped lead to these deficits.  We can't do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new.  Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt.  Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here.  Let's try common sense.  (Laughter.)  A novel concept.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now.  We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.  To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.  (Applause.)

That's what I came to Washington to do.  That's why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online.  That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there.  It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress.  It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. 

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.  (Applause.)  I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.  (Applause.)  They should be decided by the American people.  And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform.  Applause.)  Democrats and Republicans.  (Applause.)  Democrats and Republicans.  You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change.  But restoring the public trust demands more.  For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online.  (Applause.)  Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another.  Now, I'm not naïve.  I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era.  I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched.  And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years.  They're the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day.  We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that if you lose, I win.  Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can.  The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now.  The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators.  (Applause.) 

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game.  But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people.  Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics.  I know it's an election year.  And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual.  But we still need to govern. 

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.  (Applause.)  And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.  (Applause.)  Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership.  We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.  (Applause.)  So let's show the American people that we can do it together.  (Applause.)

This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans.  I'd like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership.  I know you can't wait.  (Laughter.)

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security.  Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated.  We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country.  All of us are committed to its defense.  So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough.  Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values.  Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world.  (Applause.)

That's the work we began last year.  Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation.  We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives.  We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence.  We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.  And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.

And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home.  (Applause.)  We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike.  (Applause.)  We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose.  There will be difficult days ahead.  But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people.  As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President.  We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August.  (Applause.)  We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity.  But make no mistake:  This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.  (Applause.)   

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world –- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support.  And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home.  (Applause.)  That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades -- last year.  (Applause.)   That's why we're building a 21st century VA.  And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.  (Applause.)

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people -– the threat of nuclear weapons.  I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them.  To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.  (Applause.)  And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal:  securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.  (Applause.)

Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons.  That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced.  That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated.  And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt:  They, too, will face growing consequences.  That is a promise.  (Applause.)

That's the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery.  We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation.  We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS.  And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores.  But we also do it because it is right.  That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild.  (Applause.)  That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea.  For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.  (Applause.)  Always.  (Applause.)

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals.  The same is true at home.  We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution:  the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.    

We must continually renew this promise.  My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination.  (Applause.)  We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate.  (Applause.)  This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.  (Applause.)  It's the right thing to do.  (Applause.)  

We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -– so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work.  (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.  (Applause.)

In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America  -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still.  Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers.  Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country.  They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit.  These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values.  They're American values.  

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -– our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government –- still reflect these same values.  Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper.  But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow.  Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith.  The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.  

No wonder there's so much cynicism out there.  No wonder there's so much disappointment. 

I campaigned on the promise of change –- change we can believe in, the slogan went.  And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change –- or that I can deliver it. 

But remember this –- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone.  Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated.  And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy.  That's just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers.  We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation. 

But I also know this:  If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight.  The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved.  But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year.  And what keeps me going -– what keeps me fighting -– is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.   

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong.  We are resilient.  We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti. 

And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!  U.S.A!" when another life was saved. 

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.  We have finished a difficult year.  We have come through a difficult decade.  But a new year has come.  A new decade stretches before us.  We don't quit.  I don't quit.  (Applause.)  Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.  (Applause.)

Thank you.  God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

Oberstes Ziel des Präsidenten ist, Ansehen und Einfluss der Vereinigten Staaten in der Welt zurückzugewinnen und das Land rasch auf den Weg wirtschaftlicher Genesung zu führen. Bei dem Schlüsselprojekt Gesundheitsreform ist ein erster parlamentarischer Erfolg zu verbuchen. Die amerikanische Außenpolitik weist neben unverrückbaren Grundkonstanten bereits einige nicht nur stilistische Akzentverschiebungen auf: Iran und der Af/Pak-Raum stehen ab sofort im Zentrum des sicherheitspolitischen Krisenmanagements, während das Engagement im Irak zurückgefahren wird. Der Antiterrorkampf bleibt auf der Agenda, ergänzt durch ein Zugehen auf die muslimische Welt. Das Thema Rüstungskontrolle ist wiederbelebt und soll zur Übereinkunft mit Russland und Iran führen. Die Renovierung der NATO wird energisch vorangetrieben. Insgesamt sollen verstärkt diplomatische Instrumente zum Einsatz kommen und multilaterale Wege beschritten werden.

Die Akteure in Übersee erhoffen sich von der Politik der neuen US-Regierung einen Impuls für die transatlantischen Beziehungen. Dabei sind zwischen Amerikanern und Europäern noch eine Reihe von Meinungsverschiedenheiten zu bearbeiten. Die USA werden eine stärkere sicherheitspolitische Lastenteilung einfordern. Zwei Streitfragen hält das neue Jahr gleich zu Beginn bereit: die Fortführung des Afghanistaneinsatzes und die künftige Rolle der NATO. Beide sind eng miteinander verknüpft und existenziell. Angesichts globaler Problemstellungen und Machtverschiebungen hat die transatlantische Partnerschaft als Instrument des Westens neue Bedeutung erlangt, in das auch die deutsche Regierung wieder stärker investieren und dazu politische Schnittmengen mit den USA, ihrem wichtigsten Partner außerhalb der EU, aktivieren wird. [Lucas Lypp]

Hintergrund: Ein Jahr Obama

Simon Schlechtweg

Die Wahl Barack Obamas zum 44. US-Präsidenten war eine historische Wahl: Zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Vereinigten Staaten bekleidet seit dem 20. Januar 2009 ein Farbiger das höchste Amt. Und sie sollte - unter dem Motto „Change“ - ein deutlicher Schnitt gegenüber der von Kriegen und wirtschaftlichen Problemen gekennzeichneten Regierungszeit seines Vorgängers sein. Die Erwartungen gegenüber dem neuen Präsidenten waren dabei von vornherein irrational hoch und werden nur schwer erfüllbar sein.

So war die Amtszeit George W. Bushs geprägt von einer Reihe innen- und außenpolitischer Schlüsselereignisse, die sich über den Regierungswechsel hinaus auf die amerikanische Politik auswirken, wie die terroristischen Anschläge des 11. September 2001 und die Kriege im Rahmen des Antiterrorkampfes in Afghanistan und Irak. Zudem musste die neue Administration gleich zu Beginn ungeplante Ereignisse wie die Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise oder den Gazakrieg bewältigen. Diese konkurrieren mit den selbstgesetzten Themen der Regierung um die Ressourcen der amerikanischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik.

Der Auftakt: Bewältigung der Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise – Gesundheitsreform – Klimapolitik

Obama machte die schwerste Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise seit der Großen Depression der 1930er Jahre zwangsläufig zu einer Top-Priorität im ersten Jahr seiner Amtszeit. Im Februar 2009 konnte er ein 789 Milliarden US-Dollar schweres Konjunkturpaket verabschieden lassen, um die amerikanische Wirtschaft zu stabilisieren („American Recovery and Reinvestment Act“). Eine Verschlimmerung der Krise konnte damit abgewendet werden. Jedoch bleibt es eine Herausforderung, Instrumente zu schaffen und durchzusetzen, um ähnliche Einbrüche künftig zu verhindern. Zudem müssen die USA versuchen, die durch die Finanzhilfen erheblich angestiegene Staatsverschuldung wieder auf ein verträgliches Maß zurückzuführen.

Trotz der kostspieligen Folgen der Wirtschaftskrise kündigte Obama noch während des Wahlkampfes eine umfassende Reform des amerikanischen Gesundheitssystems an. Ziel war es, mehr Menschen eine medizinische Versorgung zu garantieren, und zugleich die Kosten zu senken. Eine Reform stellte sich bislang als schwieriges Unterfangen heraus, da es in den USA starken politischen Widerstand gegen die Kosten des Vorhabens von etwa 871 Milliarden US-Dollar und generell gegen staatliche Eingriffe in das Gesundheitswesen gibt. Zudem besitzt die Mehrheit der Amerikaner bereits ein Krankenversicherung und ließ sich während der Wirtschaftskrise nur schwer von einer Reform überzeugen. Im Gegensatz zu Bill Clinton konnte Obama jedoch bis Ende Dezember 2009 zunächst einen Teilsieg erringen und einen ersten Gesetzesentwurf in beiden Häusern des Parlaments durchsetzten; die Entwürfe beider Kammern werden nun vom Vermittlungsausschuss abgeglichen.

Ein schwerer Schlag für Obamas Reformvorhaben war der Verlust des Senatssitzes des verstorbenen Demokraten Edward Kennedy an die Republikaner im Januar 2010. Dies hat zur Folge, dass die Demokraten 2010 nur noch über 59 Sitze und somit über keine strategische Mehrheit mehr im Senat verfügen. Die Republikaner sind nun in der Lage, Gesetzes- und Reformvorhaben der Regierung zu blockieren.

Auch die Klimapolitik hat der neue Amtsinhaber zur Chefsache erhoben. Auf internationaler Ebene, auf der Kopenhagener Konferenz im Dezember 2009, galt es, ein Nachfolgeabkommen für das auslaufende Kyoto-Protokoll auszuhandeln, um das weltweite Phänomen des Klimawandels beherrschbar zu machen. Ergebnis war allerdings zunächst lediglich eine unverbindliche Erklärung. Innenpolitisch versucht die Obama-Regierung, den „American Clean Energy and Security Act“ zu verabschieden, der die Schaffung eines nationalen Emissionshandels vorsieht. Der Entwurf wurde bereits im Repräsentantenhaus mit knapper Mehrheit durchgesetzt, muss jedoch noch vom Senat abgesegnet werden.

Das Erbe: der Kampf gegen den Terror

Wichtigstes internationales Ereignis in der Amtszeit George W. Bushs waren die Terroranschläge des 11. September 2001, die die politische Landschaft und die Staatsräson der USA in vielerlei Hinsicht nachhaltig verändert haben. Die Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der Bush-Regierung wurde von diesem Zeitpunkt an vor allem vom Kampf gegen den internationalen Terrorismus bestimmt. In Afghanistan und Irak führen die USA seitdem, gemeinsam mit Partnerländern, Militäroperationen durch. Obama machte bereits im Wahlkampf deutlich, dass er den Antiterrorkampf weiterführen werde, jedoch mit einer anderen Herangehensweise. Dies untermauerte er auch in seiner vielbeachteten Kairoer Rede im Juni 2009 an die muslimische Welt.

Als eine der ersten Amtshandlungen ließ Obama die „Extraordinary Rendition“-Flüge der CIA von Terrorverdächtigen zu Folter-Verhören in sogenannten „Black Sites“ beenden. Als weitere Maßnahme verkündete er, dass seine Regierung beabsichtige, innerhalb eines Jahres das umstrittene Gefängnis für Terroristen und Terrorverdächtige in Guantánamo auf Kuba, zu schließen, welches weltweit als ein Symbol der Rechtlosigkeit betrachtet wird. Obama hat zudem den Irakkrieg als einen „war of choice“ bezeichnet, der nicht unbedingt den Interessen der USA im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus förderlich sei. So kündigte er an, den Fokus künftig auf die Hochburgen islamistischer Terrorgruppen in Afghanistan und Pakistan, zu legen, von wo laut Obama die größten Bedrohungen für die USA herrühren.

Neue Schwerpunktsetzung: vom Irak zum Af/Pak-Raum

Die Kriege im Irak und in Afghanistan konnten von der Vorgängerregierung nicht zu Ende geführt werden. Im Irak scheint sich die Sicherheitslage seit der Truppenverstärkung 2007 zu stabilisieren, auch wenn es immer wieder zu gravierenden Terroranschlägen kommt. Dies wird es ermöglichen, weitere Kräfte abzuziehen, den Irakern mehr Verantwortung für ihr Land zu übertragen und sich militärisch stärker auf Afghanistan zu konzentrieren.

In der Afghanistan-Politik geht es Obama darum, weitere Akteure, vor allem Russland und Iran, einzubinden. Durch eine diplomatische Offensive und umfangreiche Zugeständnisse an beide Länder möchte der US-Präsident deren Unterstützung im Kampf gegen die Taliban und für die politische Stabilisierung des Landes gewinnen. Zwei Ereignisse haben diesen Ansatz jedoch erheblich erschwert. Durch den Kaukasus-Krieg 2008 gerieten Russland und der Westen in diplomatischen Gegensatz. Im Iran belasten die Ausschreitungen infolge der Wahlen 2009 die Verhandlungen.

Im Dezember 2009 kündigte Obama dann zunächst einseitig eine Verstärkung des militärischen Engagements in Afghanistan an. Mit der Entsendung von bis zu 30 000 Mann zusätzlich soll die Verschlechterung der Sicherheitslage aufgehalten werden. Außerdem ist geplant, auch die nichtmilitärischen Instrumente zu verstärken und zudem mehr Mittel für die Ausbildung afghanischer Polizeikräfte bereitzustellen. Unklar ist noch, ob die neue Af/Pak-Strategie direkte Verhandlungen mit den Taliban vorsieht. Dabei wird der Afghanistan-Einsatz in den weiteren regionalen Kontext eingebettet. Vor allem geht es um die Stabilisierung Pakistans. Die Taliban gefährden auch den Nachbarstaat, der zudem über Nuklearwaffen verfügt, und nutzen ihn als „save haven“, von dem aus sie Operationen in Afghanistan planen und steuern.

Iran: Nuklearverhandlungen mit dem einstigen „Schurkenstaat“?

Vor allem nach den Ereignissen von 9/11 haben sich die amerikanisch-iranischen Beziehungen in der Amtszeit Bushs stark verschlechtert. Und das Regime steht weiter im Verdacht, gegen die USA und Israel gerichtete Terrororganisationen zu unterstützen und Nuklearwaffen zu entwickeln. Zudem drohte der iranische Präsident mehrfach damit, Israel vernichten zu wollen. Bereits im Wahlkampf machte Obama deutlich, dass es im Interesse Amerikas und der restlichen Welt liege, eine nukleare Bewaffnung des Iran zu verhindern. Er versicherte dabei, diesen Konflikt soweit wie möglich mit friedlichen Mitteln lösen zu wollen und eine neue diplomatische Offensive zu starten, um Teheran dazu zu bewegen, die Urananreicherung aufzugeben. Gleichzeitig drohte er dem Land mit schweren Sanktionen, falls die Verhandlungen scheitern sollten. Die US-Politik war allerdings noch nicht von Erfolg gekrönt. Die Verhandlungen mit dem Iran gerieten durch die schweren Ausschreitungen aufgrund der umstrittenen Wahlen, bei denen es zu schweren Menschenrechtsverletzungen kam, ins Stocken. Die US-Regierung entschied sich jedoch, Zurückhaltung zu üben, um das Vorhaben der Nukleargespräche nicht zu gefährden. Trotz intensiver Bemühungen ist Teheran allerdings bislang nicht auf die Offerten des Westens eingegangen und hat ein entsprechendes Ultimatum im Dezember 2009 verstreichen lassen. Washington bemüht sich in der Iran-Frage und zur Verhängung weiterer wirtschaftlicher und politischer Sanktionen um zusätzliche Verbündete, vor allem um China, Russland und die EU-Länder.

Neustart: Nukleare Abrüstung und Beziehung zu Russland

Die Bemühungen in der iranischen Atomfrage sind Teil einer umfassenden Initiative der US-Regierung zur internationalen Rüstungskontrolle. Im April 2009 verkündete Obama in Prag sein Ziel einer nuklearwaffenfreien Welt. Diese Vision wurde im September 2009 auch in die Form einer Resolution des VN-Sicherheitsrates gegossen. Obama unterstrich dabei, dass nur durch eine konsequente Abrüstungspolitik der etablierten Atommächte Staaten wie Nordkorea und Iran von einer nuklearen Aufrüstung abgehalten werden können.

Daher kündigte der US-Präsident an, den Kernwaffenteststopp-Vertrag so bald wie möglich zu ratifizieren. Die nukleare Abrüstung wurde 2009 auch das beherrschende Thema in den amerikanisch-russischen Beziehungen. Dabei ging es vor allem um die Planung eines US-Raketenschildes in Osteuropa und die Erneuerung des am 5. Dezember 2009 abgelaufenen START-Abrüstungsvertrags. Obama kam der russischen Seite entgegen, nicht zuletzt, da er deren Unterstützung in anderen Handlungsfeldern benötigt, und kündigte an, die Planungen für den Abwehrschild vorerst einzustellen. Mit dem reset in den Beziehungen zu Russland kann seine Außenpolitik einen – wenn auch kleinen – Erfolg verbuchen. Moskau scheint auf die Zugeständnisse der US-Regierung einzugehen und hat sich zu Verhandlungen über ein START-Nachfolgeabkommen bereit erklärt. Angestoßen durch die „Global Zero“-Initiative kam es zu einer Einigung beider Länder auf die drastische Reduzierung ihrer Nuklearwaffenarsenale. Nichtsdestotrotz kündigte Medwedewim Dezember 2009 auch die Entwicklung neuer Atomwaffen an und Putin warf der US-Regierung Hinhaltetaktik bei den Verhandlungen vor.

Herausforderung: Aufsteigende Mächte

Eine Entwicklung, die sich dem Einfluss der USA weitgehend entzieht und ihre Position im Staatensystem relativiert, ist der Aufstieg der großen Schwellenländer. Dabei übernimmt China immer mehr die Rolle des Hauptrivalen der Vereinigten Staaten. Seine wirtschaftliche und militärische Macht wird in den nächsten Jahren weiter wachsen. Es ist die Frage, wie die neue Regierung in Washington mit dieser Problematik künftig umgeht und mit einem eher liberalen Ansatz versuchen wird, China durch Intensivierung der politischen und der Handelsbeziehungen einzubinden, oder einen eher realpolitischen Kurs einschlagen und versuchen wird, den Handlungsspielraum der Volksrepublik, etwa durch neue Zölle, einzudämmen. Es hat sich bereits gezeigt, dass die derzeitige US-Regierung der offensiven Demokratieförderung eine geringere Priorität beimisst, was die Kooperation mit Peking sehr erleichtern dürfte. Auf militärischem Gebiet bleiben die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika auf absehbare Zeit die unbestrittene Supermacht. Obama hatte bereits im Wahlkampf angekündigt, auch während seiner Präsidentschaft die militärischen Kapazitäten auszubauen. 2010 werden die USA mit 663,8 Milliarden Dollar abermals mehr Mittel für militärische Zwecke einplanen als im Vorjahr.

Wiederbelebung: Transatlantische Beziehungen

Wie in so vielen anderen Handlungsfeldern plädiert der neue US-Präsident – in Abgrenzung zur Bush-Regierung – auch in den transatlantischen Beziehungen für einen grundlegenden Wandel. Bereits in seiner Berliner Wahlkampfrede 2008 kündigte Obama an, mit den Europäern enger zusammenarbeiten zu wollen, nicht nur im Rahmen der NATO. Dies löste europaweit ein sehr positives Echo aus. Viel hängt bei der Ausgestaltung der künftigen Kooperation von dem Willen und den Möglichkeiten der europäischen Partner ab, auf Obamas Politikangebote, aber auch Anfragen, einzugehen. So steht auf der Wunschliste der Amerikaner, dass die europäischen Länder Terrorhäftlinge aus Guantanamo aufnehmen, ihre NATO-Truppenkontingente in Afghanistan verstärken und verschärfte Sanktionen gegen das iranische Regime mittragen. Das Zugehen Obamas auf die europäischen Ländern verlangt diesen künftig also ein stärkeres Engagement und mehr Verantwortung ab. Daher werden solche konkreten Vorhaben von den Europäern zunächst überwiegend zurückhaltend aufgenommen. Zur Bewältigung ihrer umfangreichen und ambitionierten Agenda aber benötigen die Amerikaner die Unterstützung der Europäer dringender denn je.

aussenpolitik.net: Ein Jahr nach der Wahl Obamas zeigen sich die Amerikaner ernüchtert, seine Zustimmungswerte fallen unter 50 Prozent. Ist die Präsidentschaft bislang so eine Enttäuschung?

Henning Riecke: Die Erwartungen an Obama waren irrational hoch: Er hat den Amerikanern einen Neuanfang angeboten, mehr Gemeinschaftlichkeit, und dem Rest der Welt einen anderen Regierungsstil als sein Vorgänger. Amerikas Bild in der Welt sollte wieder besser werden. Die überhöhten Hoffnungen waren bei vielen ein Ausdruck der Erleichterung über das Ende der Bush-Ära. Obama hat damals nicht viel getan um die Erwartungen zu dämpfen – verständlich, als Kandidat in einem Wahlkampf.

Die Bravour aus der Endphase des Wahlkampfes muss nun der mühsamen Kompromissfindung der Politik weichen. Dies enttäuscht viele Amerikaner. Ein umständlicher Start, bis die neue Regierung im Sattel saß; Kompromisse in der Gesundheitsreform; hohe Arbeitslosigkeit; die verpasste Auflösung von Guantanamo; Zögern nach dem vereitelten Anschlag von Detroit – Obamas Kritiker finden schnell kritische Punkte. Diese Ereignisse  hinterlassen den Eindruck, dass Obama die harte Politik schwerer fällt als die weiche Wahlkampfrhetorik. Aus europäischer Perspektive sind vor allem die mageren Festlegungen im Klimaschutz bedauerlich.

Misst man Obamas Leistungen aber nicht an den überhöhten Erwartungen, sondern an den Möglichkeiten, fällt die Zwischenbilanz so schlecht nicht aus. Wer erwartet hat, dass komplexe Politikwechsel wie im Klimaschutz oder bei der Gesundheitspolitik binnen Jahresfrist umgesetzt werden, der muss an Wunder glauben. Politische Prozesse sind nicht leicht als Erfolg zu verkaufen. Auch in den USA ist die Gesetzgebung langwierig und schwierig, vor allem, wenn es um so umstrittene Projekte wie die Gesundheitsreform geht. Die staatliche Verantwortung im neuen System geht vielen Amerikanern absolut gegen den Strich. Die meisten Amerikaner sind krankenversichert und fragen sich: „Was kostet es uns?“ Obamas Reformvorhaben, bei allen Abstrichen, ist jetzt schon weiter gediehen als alle anderen Initiativen zuvor. In der Finanzkrise hat Obamas Krisenpolitik das Schlimmste von der US-Wirtschaft abgewendet, doch beunruhigt die Amerikaner die 10-prozentige Arbeitslosigkeit. Guantánamo, schließlich, hätte bis Januar 2010 geschlossen sein können, doch hat der Präsident die Bereitschaft der US-Bundesstaaten und der Alliierten in Übersee überschätzt, Gefangene aufzunehmen. Die Schließung ist aber beschlossene Sache.

Zwei kritische Punkte möchte ich aber festhalten. Die Entzauberung Obamas hat viel mit der Frustration über den politischen Apparat in Washington zu tun. Obama hat sich als Kandidat von Kungelei und Filz der Hauptstadt distanziert. Er muss sich nun als Präsident bewiesen, der in dieser Maschinerie agieren kann. Um aber den Amerikanern wieder mehr Zutrauen in die Politik zu geben, müsste er den Wandel wieder stärker zum Leitmotiv seiner Amtsführung machen. „Yes we can!“ und „Change“ müssen mit konkreten Inhalten gefüllt werden. Auch hat er es noch nicht vermocht, die Polarisierung der amerikanischen Gesellschaft zu überwinden. An dem Anspruch, die tiefe Spaltung zwischen den politischen Lagern zu überwinden, pragmatische Politik möglich zu machen, wird er seine Amtszeit später messen lassen müssen.

aussenpolitik.net: Eines der wichtigsten außenpolitischen Themen ist Afghanistan. Wie ist der Strategiewandel Obamas zu bewerten? Gibt es einen wahren Kurswechsel oder macht er eigentlich weiter wie sein Vorgänger Bush?

Henning Riecke: Der Ausgangspunkt der Afghanistanpolitik unter Obama war erst einmal, dass der Krieg gegen die Taliban als die eigentliche Kampflinie mit dem Terrorismus aufgewertet wurde. Mehr Engagement in Afghanistan funktioniert allerdings nur, wenn sich die US-Truppen aus dem Irak zurückziehen. Dies ist ein Pluspunkt auf Obamas Agenda, der gern vergessen wird.

Obamas Neuformulierung sieht verstärktes Engagement in mehreren Bereichen vor: bei der eigenen Truppenstärke, der Ausbildung der Afghanen und der Einbindung der Nachbarstaaten. Aber die USA setzen noch immer auf militärische Dominanz, auch wenn die Zivilisten besser geschützt werden sollen. Die gesamte Mission wird mit über 30 000 zusätzlichen US-Soldaten künftig noch stärker amerikanischen Charakter tragen. Den Strategiewandel müssten wir Deutschen eigentlich voll unterstützen – er ist einer hin zur „Vernetzten Sicherheit“. Unter diesem Schlagwort hat die Bundesregierung immer auf das notwendige Übergewicht der zivilen Seite des Afghanistaneinsatzes hingewiesen.

Problematisch war, dass sich die Strategiefindung so lange hinzog. Die Ankündigung und Diskussion der neuen Strategie, ihre Vorstellung im Frühjahr, die  Überprüfung durch das US-Militär und die Entscheidung  über die Aufstockung kommentierten die Medien jedes Mal wie einen „neuen“ Neuanfang. Dies sah wie zögerliche Unentschlossenheit aus. Zudem hat sich auch Obama auf den schwachen Präsidenten Karzai stützen müssen, der besonders nach seinen Wahlfälschungen immer weniger tragbar ist. Amerikas Alliierte sind kaum begeistert von der Aussicht auf „mehr Krieg“ in Afghanistan. Sie haben mit eigenen zusätzlichen Beiträgen auf die Amerikaner gewartet und kommen nun erst wieder nach der Londoner Konferenz Ende des Monats in die Gänge. Dies macht es für Obama nicht leichter, in den USA Unterstützung für den teuren Krieg am Hindukusch zu mobilisieren.

aussenpolitik.net: Viel Applaus hat die Abrüstungsinitiative eingebracht. Bringt Obama uns einer nuklearwaffenfreien Welt näher?

Henning Riecke: Obama konnte mit den Russen Einigkeit über eine Neuverhandlung des auslaufenden START I-Vertrags über die strategische Abrüstung erzielen. Kurz darauf hat er sich dem Ziel einer nuklearwaffenfreien Welt verschrieben – und gleichzeitig klar gemacht, dass er dies wohl nicht mehr erleben würde. Mit der Abrüstungsinitiative will Obama mehrere Fliegen mit einer Klappe schlagen. Zunächst geht es darum, das schwierige Verhältnis zu Russland zu verbessern. Obama braucht Russland für seine Afghanistan- und Iranpolitik als strategischen Partner. Die nukleare Abrüstung ist eines der wenigen Felder, in denen die USA mit Russland auf Augenhöhe verhandeln. Die Abstimmung über die nukleare Abrüstung und eine Balance auf niedrigerem Niveau kann dann Einvernehmen in anderen Bereichen nach sich ziehen.

Dabei zielt Obama auch darauf,  die kommende Überprüfungskonferenz des Nichtverbreitungsvertrages im Frühjahr gut über die Bühne zu bringen. Die letzte Konferenz ist vor fünf Jahren unter anderem deswegen gescheitert, weil sich die Nuklearwaffenstaaten zu keinen weiteren Abrüstungsschritten verpflichten wollten. Obama wertet nun die Nuklearwaffen zumindest rhetorisch ab, und stärkt so einen normativen Rahmen, der auch dazu dient, Proliferationskandidaten wie den Iran zu isolieren. Das persische Nuklearprogramm ist ein ungelöstes Problem für Obama, doch können die USA stärker verhandeln, wenn der Iran mehr und mehr als Pariah unter den Nichtkernwaffenstaaten dasteht. Die Arbeit an einer nuklearwaffenfreien Welt müsste aber auch die anderen offiziellen und nicht offiziellen Nuklearwaffenstaaten einbeziehen. Bei ihnen kommt bislang keine rechte Begeisterung für „Global Zero“ auf, und Obama hat seine Initiative auch kaum in Politik gegenüber China oder Israel umgesetzt.

aussenpolitik.net: Das Dialogangebot an die islamische Welt sollte einen weiteren Kurswechsel der Amerikaner einläuten. Welche neuen Handlungsmöglichkeiten haben sich daraus ergeben?

Henning Riecke: Der in der Rede von Kairo im Juni angebotene Dialog setzt darauf, das gespannte Verhältnis des Westens und der USA zur islamischen Welt zu verbessern und in der islamischen Welt Partner zu gewinnen. Obama hat dabei den richtigen Ton getroffen, der islamischen Kultur Respekt gezollt und sich von missionarischer Demokratisierungspolitik abgewandt. Gleichzeitig vermied er deutliche Worte zum Irak oder dem Nahostkonflikt.

Ob diese Ouvertüre nun zu stärkerer Zusammenarbeit führt, hängt davon ab, ob sich die islamischen Staaten dafür öffnen. Positiv ist, dass islamische Regierungen heute nicht mehr die eigene politische Existenz in Frage stellen, wenn sie mit der US-Regierung kooperieren. Deren Glaubwürdigkeit hängt aber von ihrer Haltung im Nahostkonflikt und den Erfolgen in Afghanistan und der Irankrise ab. Der fortgesetzte Siedlungsbau im Westjordanland, gegen die dringende Empfehlung der US-Regierung, hat allen Arabern gezeigt, dass die US-Regierung kaum Einfluss auf ihre israelischen Verbündeten nehmen können. Auch, wie unbekümmert die Iraner sich weiter auf den Ausbau der sensitiven Technologien in der Nuklearenergie stürzen, hat die Position der USA nicht gestärkt. Nicht zuletzt hängt ein entspanntes Verhältnis der USA zu den islamischen Staaten davon ab, dass der Krieg in „AfPak“ nicht auf dem Rücken der Zivilbevölkerung geführt wird, und dass sich ähnliche Übergriffe im Kampf gegen jemenitische Ausbildungszentren des Terrorismus nicht wiederholen. Perversionen wie die Gefängnisse in Abu Graib, Bagram oder Guantánamo müssen Vergangenheit werden. Handlungen sind wichtiger als Worte, das gilt auch für die neue Kooperation mit der muslimischen Welt.

aussenpolitik.net: Zuletzt: Was bedeutet die neue US-Regierung für uns, die Deutschen und Europäer? Hat sich das Klima für die transatlantischen Beziehungen, speziell für die NATO, verbessert?

Henning Riecke: Obama hat dort Erfolge zu verzeichnen, wo die USA mehr oder weniger allein vorgehen können: bei der nuklearen Abrüstung zusammen mit Russland, beim Abzug aus dem Irak, bei innenpolitischen Themen. Wo die zögerlichen europäischen Alliierten ins Spiel kommen müssten, sieht es eher schlecht aus: Afghanistan, Iran, selbst Guantánamo. Wenn die Europäer ein Interesse daran haben, die Position der USA als Führungsmacht und stärkstem Verbündeten zu festigen, und die westliche Gestaltungsmacht aufrecht zu erhalten, sollten sie sich um entschlossenere Beiträge und gemeinsames Vorgehen bemühen. Das Lavieren um die uigurischen Gefangenen aus Guantánamo, die nicht nach Deutschland kommen durften, oder das hilflose Taktieren um die Afghanistan-Konferenz, um den Erwartungsdruck aus Washington zu senken, lassen keine neue Ära der transatlantischen Beziehungen erwarten.

Auch wenn Obama nicht so mäkelig mit den Europäern ins Gericht geht wie sein Vorgänger Bush und seine Minister, sollten wir uns nicht zurücklehnen. Obama hat mit der Aussicht auf neue Partner und Alliierte in der Außenpolitik politisches Kapital im Wahlkampf geschlagen. Deshalb dürfte auch im Obama-Team, darin viele Europa-Kenner, schnell Frustration um sich greifen, wenn die Regierung unter innenpolitischen Druck gerät und die Verbündeten mal wieder auf den Händen sitzen.

[Interview: Lucas Lypp]

- - -

*Dr. Henning Riecke ist Leiter des Programms USA/Transatlantische Beziehungen der DGAP
E-mail: riecke@dgap.org

• Nach dem Gipfel ist vor dem Gipfel: Das G20-Treffen in Pittsburgh weist in die richtige Richtung
  Zeitschrift Internationale Politik, Onlinebeitrag vom 5. Oktober 2009
• Nach der Krise ist vor der Krise
  gemeinsam mit Katharina Gnath, DGAPstandpunkt 8, 18. September 2009, 4 S.

THE PRESIDENT:  Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility.  It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate.  Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated.  (Laughter.)  In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage.  Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight.  And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics.  I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.  One of these wars is winding down.  The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.  Some will kill, and some will be killed.  And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new.  War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.  At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war.  The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met:  if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed.  The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God.  Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.  In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent.  And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war.  And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace:  a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded.  Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed.  But there has been no Third World War.  The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall.  Commerce has stitched much of the world together.  Billions have been lifted from poverty.  The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced.  We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats.  The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe.  Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations.  The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos.  In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.  What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago.  And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth:  We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.  There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago:  "Violence never brings permanent peace.  It solves no social problem:  it merely creates new and more complicated ones."  As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence.  I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.  I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.  For make no mistake:  Evil does exist in the world.  A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies.  Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause.  And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world.  Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this:  The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.  The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.  We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will.  We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.  And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy.  The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms.  But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly.  Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago.  "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."  A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like?  What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force.  I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.  Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense.  Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves.  For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor.  More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war.  Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.  That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver.  But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone.  America alone cannot secure the peace.  This is true in Afghanistan.  This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering.  And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan.  But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public.  I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this:  The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it.  Peace requires responsibility.  Peace entails sacrifice.  That's why NATO continues to be indispensable.  That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries.  That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force.  Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it.  The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct.  And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.  That is what makes us different from those whom we fight.  That is a source of our strength.  That is why I prohibited torture.  That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.  And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.  We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.  (Applause.)  And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war.  But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something.  Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable.  Sanctions must exact a real price.  Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them.  In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear:  All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament.  I am committed to upholding this treaty.  It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy.  And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system.  Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted.  Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia.  Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people.  When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences.  Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail.  And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek.  For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict.  Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War.  In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored.  For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development.  And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices.  I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.  Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence.  We also know that the opposite is true.  Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace.  America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens.  No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal.  We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran.  It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation.  And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.

Let me also say this:  The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone.  At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy.  I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation.  But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo.  No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies.  Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa.  Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe.  There's no simple formula here.  But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity.  For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive.  It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family.  The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity.  It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change.  There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades.  For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations.  Strong institutions.  Support for human rights.  Investments in development.  All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about.  And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion.  In some places, this fear has led to conflict.  At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards.  We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden.  We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan.  These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded.  But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war.  For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith.  Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature.  For we are fallible.  We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil.  Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected.  We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place.  The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity.  We lose our sense of possibility.  We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future.  As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history.  I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.  (Applause.)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace.  Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on.  Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example.  We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice.  We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity.  Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace.  We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

THE PRESIDENT:  Good evening.  To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans:  I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.  It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.  We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.  They struck at our military and economic nerve centers.  They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.  Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day.  The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing.  The vote in the House was 420 to 1.  For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all.  And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks.  America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.  Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed.  The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels.  A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.  At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai.  And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq.  The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here.  It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.  We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011.  That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.  (Applause.)  Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. 

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated.  After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there.  Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. 

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government.  Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq.  When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war.  Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.  And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.  After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan.  I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts. 

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives.  High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years.  In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain.  Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards.  There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum.  Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border.  And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.  Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated.  In short:  The status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger.  Some of you fought in Afghanistan.  Some of you will deploy there.  As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service.  And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.  Now, let me be clear:  There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.  Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.  And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.

This review is now complete.  And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.  After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.  These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. 

I do not make this decision lightly.  I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.  We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources.  Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.  And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.  As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars.  I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed.  I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place.  I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.  If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly.  I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda.  It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.  This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.  In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity.  We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear.  This is not just America's war.  Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali.  The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered.  And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies.  Our overarching goal remains the same:  to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan.  We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven.  We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.  And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. 

We will meet these objectives in three ways.  First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.  They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight.  And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. 

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies.  Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan.  And now, we must come together to end this war successfully.  For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.  Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.  We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.  But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. 

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance.  The days of providing a blank check are over.  President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction.  And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.  We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people.  We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.  And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes.  So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering.  We have no interest in occupying your country.  We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens.  And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country.  But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan.  That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence.  But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism.  Public opinion has turned.  The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan.  And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly.  Those days are over.  Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.  America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development.  We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting.  And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy:  a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach.  So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam.  They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing.  I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history.  Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.  Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency.  And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.  To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. 

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have.  But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there.  It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility.  Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort  -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade.  I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.  Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government.  It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests.  And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces.  I don't have the luxury of committing to just one.  Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration:  the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance.  We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy.  In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills.  Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.  Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce.  So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars.  Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly.  Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home.  Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power.  It pays for our military.  It underwrites our diplomacy.  It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry.  And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last.  That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

Now, let me be clear:  None of this will be easy.  The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.  It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world.  And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars.  We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power.  Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we can't count on military might alone.  We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad.  We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction.  And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone.  I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships.  And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not.  That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples.  That is who we are.  That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs.  We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents.  We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies.  We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes.  But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty. 

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination.  Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations.  We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.  What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren.  And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.  (Applause.)   

As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President.  Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom.  And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. 

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms.  It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.  (Applause.) 
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we.  But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear.  I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again.  (Applause.)  I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose.  For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America -- we are passing through a time of great trial.  And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear:  that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering.  We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.  (Applause.)