2017 Munich Security Conference

[Blakesley]

 

Hotel Bayerischer Hof, Munich, Germany

  

Held annually at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof in Munich, Germany, the Munich Security Conference is attended by several American, Canadian, and European leaders and, increasingly, several officials from further afield. While any topic is open to discussion, many speeches typically focus on the transatlantic relationship. Topics of particular interest in 2017 are "the future of the West and NATO", "the fight against terrorism", foreign policy in the Middle East (particularly as it relates to Afghanistan, NATO, Syria, and the refugee crisis), and the future of the U.S. and NATO policy towards Russia.

 

The top three speeches will be awarded meetings with foreign officials.

• 1st place: Meeting with a Foreign or Defense Minister from a major European country (France, Germany, UK, Italy, Turkey), the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, or a head of government from a mid-sized European country (think Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway).
• Runners Up: Meeting with a foreign or defense minister from a mid-sized European country (think Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) or a head of government from a smaller European country (think Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, or any Balkan country).

 

Speeches are due by 11:59 pm EDT on April 6, 2024. This topic is moderated, so feel free to post your speech at any point from now until the deadline. This topic will lock automatically and no extensions will be granted. If you post early, you can edit your speech until the deadline.

[Dak]

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed colleagues, and honored delegates:

 

It is an honor to be with you here today at the Munich Security Conference. As a child growing up in beautiful Puerto Rico, I quickly learned that the world is meant to be explored and that it is up to us to explore it. It has been nothing less than a privilege to be able to take in the beauty of the European continent and especially that of Germany.

 

As we gather here today, it is important to note that the United States will always have an unwavering commitment to the West and NATO. We recognize the pivotal role that this alliance plays in preserving peace and stability in an increasingly complex and tense world. In this era of unprecedented challenges, the United States stands shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies. In addition to military cooperation, we must expand our focus to include issues such as economic equity, social justice, and human rights. A progressive NATO is one that advocates for the well-being of all peoples, both within our borders and beyond. With a likeminded Congress and Executive Branch at the helm, I believe that our country is firmly committed to upholding the principles of collective defense, democratic governance, and international cooperation that have been the bedrock of this alliance for decades. The United States's commitment to NATO is NOT just a matter of words; it is one backed by concrete actions. We are bolstering our military presence in Europe, enhancing our interoperability with vital allied forces, and investing in the modernization of our collective defense capabilities to ensure that NATO remains ready and able to meet the evolving security threats we all face in a constantly changing world. This, my friends, is the future of the West and of NATO.

 

Under many presidential administrations, the United States has actively worked and will continue to work with our NATO partners to address emerging challenges, such as cyber threats, hybrid warfare, and terrorism; each issue has threatened the very fabric of our societies and the order that our citizens rely on their government to provide. We recognize that these threats do NOT respect borders and require a coordinated, multinational response. By deepening our cooperation and sharing vital intelligence and best practices within the alliance, we can better confront these shared challenges and safeguard our collective security. Make no mistake about it. The United States is committed to strengthening NATO's role as a force for stability and prosperity in Europe and beyond the Euro-Atlantic region. We are always working with our allies to support NATO's partnerships with other countries around the world. It is our priority to promote security and stability in regions facing conflict and instability.

 

In our pursuit of global security and cooperation, we must also prioritize environmental sustainability and combatting climate change. Our exploration of the world must be done responsibly, with a keen eye towards preserving our planet for future generations.

 

The Middle East stands at a crossroads, marred by conflicts and crises that have far-reaching consequences for the world order, global security, and global stability. It is crucial that the United States, along with our allies, engages in constructive dialogue. We must pursue diplomatic solutions to address the root causes of these conflicts. As history reflects, military interventions and unilateral actions have, more times than not, exacerbated tensions and led to further instability. For example, I strongly believe in the importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution. This conflict poses a grave humanitarian challenge and fuels extremism and instability in the region. The U.S. and NATO must play a constructive role in facilitating dialogue and negotiations between the parties, while also addressing the legitimate security concerns of both Israelis and Palestinians. Additionally, we need a nuanced approach to address the ongoing civil war in Syria, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, and the threat posed by extremist groups like ISIS. In the Senate, I pledge to you all here today that, in each of these instances, I will advocate for a comprehensive approach that prioritizes diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and support for an inclusive political process.

 

With regard to Russia, it is essential that this alliance adopts a firm yet pragmatic approach to managing relations with Putin and Moscow. Russia's actions in recent years, in particular its illegal annexation of Crimea, its destabilization efforts in Eastern Ukraine, and its aggressive behavior in cyberspace, have raised serious and legitimate concerns among NATO allies. With this is mind, I still believe that a policy of constructive dialogue is essential to prevent further escalation. Despite the odds, we can find areas of common interest where cooperation is possible. If Kennedy and Khrushchev could come together to ease hostility and tension between the two great powers, so can we. Nevertheless, this alliance should maintain a credible deterrence posture to defend against any potential Russian aggression while pursuing challenges of communication and cooperation on issues of mutual interest and concern. These can be topic areas such as arms control, joint counterterrorism efforts, and regional stability strategies. It is essential that NATO remains united and resolute in the face of Russian provocation, yet equally important that we leave the door open for meaningful dialogue and diplomacy to address shared security challenges.

 

As we look to the future, the United States remains fiercely determined and committed to our transatlantic partnership and the values that unite us as members of the Western community. We recognize that our collective security and prosperity depend on our ability to work together, uphold our shared principles, and adapt to the changing dynamics of the global security landscape. This includes combatting the existential threat that is climate change. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, with far-reaching implications for global security and stability. This alliance must adapt to this new reality by integrating climate considerations into our defense strategies and operational planning. We must invest in renewable energy technologies, reduce our carbon footprint, and promote sustainable practices across our armed forces and civilian populations. Moreover, NATO's role extends beyond traditional security concerns; it encompasses a shared responsibility to protect our planet for future generations. By championing environmental stewardship and fostering innovation, we can strengthen our resilience against environmental risks and contribute to a more sustainable world. In this spirit, the United States stands ready to collaborate with our NATO allies on initiatives that promote climate resilience, advance clean energy solutions, and mitigate the impact of climate change on our shared security. Together, let us forge a path towards a greener, safer, and more prosperous future for all.

 

Let me strongly reaffirm that the United States stands ready to work hand in hand with our NATO allies to address the challenges of our time and build a more prosperous, secure future for all. Together, we can and will uphold the enduring principles of freedom, democracy, and peace that have defined our alliance for generations, as we always have.

 

Peace and power be with you all and your countries. Thank you!

Edited April 7 by Dak

[Sovereign]

Alexander S. Fakhouri

United States Senate Majority Leader

 

 

 

Quote

"Good evening, everyone.

 

It's a profound honor to stand before you at this summit. As we step into 2017, the complexities of our post-Cold War reality demand our attention more than ever. There was a time when we believed the era of international power struggles and territorial conquests had ended, envisioning a future of enduring peace forged not by the threat of nuclear arsenals but through the strength of international cooperation.

 

Yet, we find ourselves shadowed by both familiar and emerging challenges. The specter of terrorism, manifested in groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, has inflicted profound suffering worldwide, driven by ideologies of hate. Simultaneously, the specter of conventional conflicts casts a long shadow over millions—be it in Korea, Crimea, or Syria.

 

These conflicts, though seemingly modern, are deeply rooted in history. The division of Korea remains a living relic of unresolved historical grievances. Similarly, Russia’s involvement in Syria traces back to Cold War-era military alliances. Russia’s actions in Eastern Europe and Ukraine reflect a continuity in foreign policy ambitions stretching back through the days of the commissars, or the Tsars before them.

 

This narrative of generational aggression and authoritarianism underscores the vital importance of our NATO alliance and the broader international community's role in maintaining global order and pursuing peace.

 

However, let me offer a perspective of hope rather than despair. This historical continuity also highlights our resilience and progress. Today, the world boasts more democracies than at any point in history, many of which have emerged from under the yoke of authoritarianism to chart their own futures—a testament to the strength of the democratic spirit, represented by many of you here.

 

Our collective achievements speak volumes. This year, Montenegro will become the 29th country to join NATO. In the Americas, we’ve witnessed the beginning of Cuba’s reintegration into the international fold. The landmark agreement on Iran’s nuclear program has made Israel and the world safer from nuclear threats. And the global commitment to combat climate change through the Paris Agreement shows unprecedented unity.

 

These milestones illuminate the path to a brighter future—one that we must continue to forge together. In the face of fearmongering and division, it is our duty to uphold the values of liberty and compassion. We must reject the notion that refugees, victims of the very atrocities we condemn, are unworthy of our support. Countries like Germany and Turkey have exemplified this courageous spirit, offering sanctuary to those in dire need.

 

As we confront the challenges of 2017, let us stand firm against ISIS, against the resurgence of old conflicts, and against the forces of division. Our commitment to a peaceful, more inclusive world will be our legacy for the generations to come—not by the threat of a finger hovering the controls of a drone, but an open hand to shake another in from one individual to another.

 

Thank you."

 

[John E]

 

 

Senator Carlsen Addresses Munich Security Conference

 

Munich, Germany:  "It is an honor to address you today.  We are gathered together as people who share similar values and common interests.  We are, by and large, democratic republics or constitutional monarchies.  For years the United States has worked with the countries of NATO and the EU, and other friends, for our mutual security and prosperity.  

 

As someone from the United States, I am especially glad to be here, because I am reminded that while my country is considered the pre-eminent superpower (or what one of our friends from France once called us, a "hyperpower."), America is far stronger with our friends and allies than we would be without you.  As an American, I have to tell you how much it meant to me, and to so many of my fellow countrymen, when NATO, for the only time in its history, activated Article 5 because America was attacked on 9/11.  

 

In retrospect, I wish we had listened more closely to the concerns of some of our allies, such as France and Germany, as we prepared for war with Iraq.  Sometimes friends have to tell each other hard truths, and for us the hard truth was that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a terrible risk, and we were not willing to hear that back in 2002 and 2003.  The numbers of civilian dead, the masses of refugees, the rise of ISIS, the decimation of the ancient Christian community in Iraq, were all consequences of our decisions in 2002 and 2003.  It is fair to say that the neo-conservative project of nation-building and exporting democracy by force has attempted too much, and has therefore failed to deliver on its promises.

 

Cooperation between allies is especially important to handle our current challenges.  For example, how will NATO and the EU address Russia and Ukraine?  Russia has de facto annexed swathes of eastern Ukraine and the Crimea.  The response from the United States and her allies was relatively muted.  But surely there is a greater sense of urgency among our friends in Poland, the Baltic States, and possibly other countries bordering Russia?  Ukraine's territorial integrity has already been compromised.  How can we work together to prevent further encroachments on Ukranian land, or pressure against other vulnerable countries in Eastern Europe?  Can we speak with a unified voice and agree to collective action?  And, is it still possible to have a cooperative relationship with Russia in light of these circumstances?

 

You will agree that we are challenged with events that do not occur on this continent.  Consider the Middle East.  That region has been a flashpoint for decades.  Right now there is a devastating civil war in Syria which potentially may de-stablize its neighbors and, as you are all too aware, has caused an acute refugee crisis.  And, as always, there is the status of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.  Is the status quo sustainable over the long term?  How will the question of Palestinian "refugees" (the overwhelming majority of whom were born in their current locations I must point out) be resolved?  Or the question of Palestinian self-government?  I will say that the entire burden does not rest on Israel.  Neighboring Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan (which was envisioned as "the Palestinian state") have a responsibility as well.  Israel is so often told that it must make sacrifices for peace.  And in the past it has done so.  But to truly settle the status of Palestinians will require sacrifice and flexibility from her neighbors.  And so what can the countries of NATO and the European Union do diplomatically and economically to facilitate a settlement that is fair to all sides?

 

I suppose it is true for any country that there is always a tension between going it alone and cooperating with others.  That is especially a difficulty for a country such as mine, because we are not constrained to the extent that members of the European Union are constrained.  Theoretically, we could "go it alone" in foreign policy and economic policy.  And I mention economic policy because in my own country there is a rising tendency towards protectionism.  Loud voices are demanding that we either renegotiate or abandon the North American Free Trade Agreement.  Needless to say, this is not a positive signal to the United States reaching further free trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or, my own preference, lowering trade barriers between the United States and the European Union.  And yet anyone with the slightest understanding knows that the greater the trading area, the more choices, the more competition, and the more innovation occurs.  And to be sure, there are differences in economic development between trading partners that should be accounted for.  But the solution is not to raise further barriers to trade.  Concerning NAFTA, it is true that since 1994 there have been job losses in some sectors of the economy.  But what critics fail to understand is that correlation is not causation.  Far more jobs disappear because of automation and other advances in productivity.  And so the solution is job retraining, other assistance for displaced workers, and changes in vocational education.

 

There is another aspect to free trade agreements other than pure economics.  There is an unavoidable political aspect as well.  I briefly mentioned the Transpacific Trade Act earlier in my remarks.  I will speak plainly:  we are concerned with mainland China's increasing influence, which is backed by a rapid military expansion and a growing threat to our friends on the Island of Taiwan.  We are sadly witnessing the slow death of freedom in Hong Kong as mainland China continues to deepen its control over that city state.  Many countries in East Asia and the Pacific have mounting concerns, such as Taiwan, and Japan, and India, Australia, and Vietnam.  The Transpacific Trade Agreement would serve to draw the United States and these countries closer together economically and politically.  If mainland China wants that kind of access and influence, we and our allies in the Asia-Pacific region would encourage a more cooperative approach from that nation.  As much influence and power as the United States may possess, imagine the potential for a free trade bloc that includes 40% of the world's entire economy?  And, to our friends in Europe, imagine what the United States and the European Union can achieve with greater economic, political and military cooperation?  

 

So many countries have united previously to achieve great aims, such as defeating Nazism and fascism in World War 2, and peacefully winning the Cold War.  How appropriate that we meet here in Germany, cruelly divided in the Cold War, but brought back together at its end?

 

Back in the 1990s, Madeline Albright called America "the indispensable nation."  I would say, if we are so, we also have indispensable partners.  I hope we will face the challenges of this world, together.  Thank you."

 

 

Edited April 6 by John E

[Abrams]

 

Senator Tom Donelson (R-TX) addresses the Munich Security Conference, February of 2017

 

Thank you very much for having me, and for the warm welcome. It has been a pleasure to be in Munich and in this country with you all discussing how we can make our world a safer place among many new challenges and difficulties.

 

Munich is a fitting place to host this event. No nation, no people have seen and experienced the destruction of war in Europe like Germany in the first half of the 20th century. The German people, as well as the people of this continent, have been faced with division, strife, and geopolitical tension unlike any other. Following the Second World War, Europe was divided, seemingly until the end of time. 

 

Across the pond, before the second World War, Charles Lindbergh was a friend of fascism and anti-semitism, yet a celebrity due to his record breaking flights around the globe. It was the celebrity that led him to be an unlikely advocate and champion of isolationism, and as a result, millions of Americans were smitten to that ideology. Who could blame them? The nation, like the world, was going through the Depression, and we had already fought a costly first war. Mr. Lindbergh had argued that Isolationism was not merely a policy of leaving the world behind, but of independence. That myth was shattered on December 7th, 1941, and truly, the whole world was at war. Following that war, we committed ourselves to never make the mistakes of settling into isolationism again. The global neighborhood had to stick together and look out for each other, to eternally stand for peace and freedom or risk totalitarian or authoritarian government. In 1948, we passed the Vandernberg resolution, and Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan said that "Politics must stop at the water's edge". A year later, we all from around the world founded NATO in 1949. 

 

Nearly 70 years later, NATO is the most successful alliance in modern human history. There is no guarantee like a complete and total defense of one another should worse come to worse. Yes, we fought a Cold War for over forty years. Why did that Cold War never go hot? Because leaders in Moscow understood an attack on one NATO member was an attack on all. Even our most hawkish on both sides of the sea did not want to see Europe desecrated, destroyed and discarded with the deaths of millions. Some 70 years later, we stay strong, we've stayed mostly peaceful, as Europe has not seen a major land war between the powers since the second world war. Yet. There are those in many around our alliance who take the position of a Lindbergh. The Cold War is over, they say; we live in a post war world, however nonsensical that is. We're getting out of a recession, they say; we must ignore our neighborhood and focus on our own people. They say this as authoritarianism rises across Eastern Europe, as a dictator based in Moscow uses the Gerasimov Doctrine to take Crimea from Ukraine, a freedom loving people, to block their access to the Black Sea. This same dictator has killed journalists and dissidents both within and outside his borders, and has attempted to assassinate leaders who refuse to bend to his will. Just ask Viktor Yuschenko.

 

Back in the U.S., many of our communities have something called a neighborhood watch. You see something, you say or do something. If you notice a prowler in the yard, someone jingling by a door or window, you go up to that person and make sure your neighbor and their property is safe until the police can arrive. You give this assurance to neighbors new and old. This is why NATO has worked for so long. No matter a state's GDP, military contributions or size, we stick up for each other because a threat to democracy and freedom over in one place is just a threat within our borders. It is why our leaders in the U.S. for so long have taken politics out of foreign affairs, and why we must continue to do so. In 2017, we must realize that our world, if only a few matters or instances go another way, could be as dangerous as they were in 1939. We must realize that our best bet to keep our world safe is NATO. 

We know that the despots are watching. Vladimir Putin has made a concerted effort of threatening the sovereignty of NATO aspirants in Georgia and Ukraine. We know what happens when weak leadership fails to protect these aspirants, like when Barack Obama, when faced with clear evidence about Putin's intentions on Crimea only issued strongly worded statements that caught the intention of the world but did not stop this terrible, terrible act from occurring. It is time that we revamp this organization, so that the organization that held the world from the brink in the late 1900s can do it for the entirety of this century. It is time that we openly begin to expand our organization to other states that share our values and seek a more peaceful world through collective security. The global leaders who truly want to make this world safe will heavily consider inviting Finland, Ukraine, Georgia, Sweden, Armenia and Bosnia to our ranks. If President de la Cruz wants to show the world that she has learned from the failure of the Obama Administration, she must be a premier leader on meeting with the leaders of these nations and evaluating what their intentions on this matter are. Membership in NATO is not just a matter of security or military strength. NATO members have been proven and shown to be far healthier economically, they're stronger democracies with healthy elections, freedoms and freedom of society and of the press, and are especially better at these facets than their non-NATO member neighbors. We must expand the parameters of assistance to non NATO members who seek it, to show that we especially care for global stability even for states outside of NATO. If Austria or Ukraine, for example, want our help but cannot make the commitment or jump to joining, their requests should be considered, and aid from the organization to non members should be expanded.

 

President Ronald Reagan once said that "peace is not obtained or preserved by wishing and weakness". If we want to keep Europe and the world safe, we cannot bend to the forces or factions in our society who think our global neighborhood is no longer as important as it was. The collective can either choose wishing or weakness, or strength and solidarity. There will always be a boogeyman or a threat lingering somewhere. Vigilance and constant commitment to each other will keep our world safe and thriving. 

 

Thank you all, it has been a pleasure.

Edited April 6 by Abrams

[TexAgRepublican]

Senator Kyle Van Horn (R-KY)

 

It is an honor to speak here at the Munich Security Conference. My name is Kyle Van Horn, and I am a U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Today I want to talk about the future of the U.S. and NATO, the fight against terrorism, and how it connects to the future of U.S. and NATO policy towards Russia. 

There is no question right now that the biggest threat to our collective security and indeed to Western Civilization itself is radical Islamic extremism. The rise of groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram threatens our very way of life. From Paris, to Orlando, to San Bernadino and beyond – it is a threat to knows no borders and respects no laws. These groups, operating under a twisted interpretation of Islam, are willing to commit unspeakable atrocities to achieve their demonic goals. 

Given the severity of this threat, the number one security priority going forward for the U.S., NATO and its allies should be the total defeat of radical Islamic extremism. This is not an enemy that we can negotiate or reason with. It can only be destroyed, and I believe that NATO is an organization that is in a prime position to defeat this threat. 

We must do everything possible to defeat this enemy because of the existential threat it poses. That means cooperating with unlikely partners, such as Russia. It is true that the U.S. and NATO may have ideological disagreements and differences with the Russian Federation. Those differences will likely remain. But what brings us together is the shared threat we face at the hands of Islamic extremism. Russia has a long history of confronting this threat in places such as Chechnya, Dagestan, and Syria. They have experienced the brutality of Islamic extremism first hand for many years, and they know what is at stake. Indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin was the first world leader to reach out to U.S. President George W. Bush in the moments after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Russia’s cooperation and assistance were crucial to the success of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan immediately following that horrific event. 

It is time for NATO and all of Western Civilization to become fully committed to eradicating the biggest threat of the Twenty-First Century – the threat of radical Islamic extremism. The Cold War is over, and has been for a long time. This is the new threat that we must eradicate. Just as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union put aside our disagreements to eradicate the existential threat of Nazi Germany in World War II – the U.S., NATO and Russia must now come together to defeat the existential threat of Islamic extremism. Thank you. 

Edited April 7 by TexAgRepublican

[Vesica]

United States National Security Advisor Cynthia Harvey

 

Ladies and gentlemen,

 

As we gather here at the Munich Security Conference, we find ourselves at a critical juncture in history. The future of the West, the integrity of NATO, and the stability of regions such as the Middle East hang in the balance. It is incumbent upon us to confront the challenges we face with resolve, determination, and a shared commitment to safeguarding our collective security and prosperity.

 

First and foremost, let us address the future of the West and NATO. The transatlantic alliance remains the cornerstone of our collective defense and the embodiment of our shared values of democracy, freedom, and human rights. However, in an era marked by geopolitical uncertainty and evolving security threats, we must adapt and strengthen NATO to ensure its relevance and effectiveness in safeguarding our interests. This includes ensuring that all NATO members are meeting their obligations of increasing National Defense spending to 2% of our GDP. In today's day and age we can no longer take the peace and prosperity of the past thirty years for granted. We must, as an alliance, all play our part and pay our fair share to ensure that collectively, as an alliance, we are prepared to face and deter any disrupting force that would throw the rules based international order that we have worked so hard to build and sustain. This goes in concert in greater cooperation and joint defense exercises and units cohesion that so, should the day ever arrive that we must invoke Article 5, we as alliance will be ready to face this challenges together as a greater whole.

 

We must also redouble our efforts in the fight against terrorism. The scourge of terrorism knows no borders and respects no laws. It preys upon the innocent and seeks to undermine our way of life. We must remain vigilant, cooperate closely with our allies, and use all means at our disposal to disrupt and dismantle terrorist networks wherever they may operate. This also means meeting and defeating the evil of ISIS head on. Make no mistake; ISIS is not Islam nor a reflection of Muslims internationally. They are a death cult; plain and simple. With ISIS there can be no quarter offered for none will be given from them. Their goals are the forced conversion of all those don't believe in their extremely narrow view and interpretation of their jihadist ideology and the death of those that refuse. They will not cooperate, they will not negotiate outside of gaining time to strike another blow. We must not allow ourselves to give them the luxury of time. We must meet them, we must root them out, and we must defeat them so that they may never strike another blow against the free world ever again, for they are an enemy of all nations.

 

Turning our attention to the Middle East, particularly Afghanistan, Syria, and the refugee crisis, we must confront the complex array of challenges facing the region with resolve and compassion. In Afghanistan, we remain committed to supporting the Afghan government and security forces as they work to build a stable and prosperous future for their country. We must continue the effort of rebuilding the Afghan National Army so that they may stand on their own two legs and can defeat the Taliban once their own merit and bring long term stability to our Afghani friends and partners. We will continue to work with our allies and partners to address the root causes of conflict and instability in Syria and to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need. And we will continue to stand in solidarity with countries in the region that have borne the brunt of the refugee crisis, offering assistance and support to both refugees and host communities.

 

Finally, let us consider the future of U.S. and NATO policy towards Russia. While we remain open to dialogue and cooperation with Russia on areas of mutual interest, we will not hesitate to defend our interests and uphold the principles of international law and sovereignty. President Putin once said that he would be open to dialogues with the west, even joining NATO once upon a time. I refuse to think that Russia, a nation that helped defeat the evils of Nazi Germany could not be integrated with the rest of Europe and indeed the rest of the international community. Like us, Russia to can be a partner in the fight against ISIS and in stabilizing the Middle East. But they must do this within the scope of engaging in good faith with the rest of the international community and becoming a valued partner to the world, not a nation out for themselves. 

 

In conclusion, let us reaffirm our commitment to the values and principles that unite us as members of the international community of nations. Let us stand together in solidarity, shoulder to shoulder, as we confront the challenges and seize the opportunities that lie ahead. And let us leave this conference with a renewed sense of purpose and determination to build a safer, more secure, and more prosperous future for all.

[Hannah]

 

Heather James, Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and Chair of the New Democrat Senate Caucus, addressed the conference.

 

Madam Chancellor, Mr Secretary General, Excellencies and colleagues [and whatever other honorifics are appropriate for those not weirded out by the abnormal number of US legislators addressing the Conference]

 

I hope you’re not tired of yet another American politician taking the stage by now. I’m sure you’ve already heard a few versions of how honored and humbled we are to be addressing this conference, which for more than 50 years has been at the bedrock of transatlantic and global security dialogues, and I hope you’ll indulge one more.

 

There will be discussion today of the future of the NATO alliance: its role and scope, the commitments its member states make to the alliance and that the alliance makes to its new and prospective members. Of terrorism in Iraq and Syria, and how to continue the work of building and maintaining coalitions against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Of cyberterrorism and cybersecurity, building on the work of last year’s Cyber Security Summit in Palo Alto. Continuing and strengthening the Iran Nuclear Deal. Weapons systems, military technology, defense strategies. I choose to address a slightly different topic: trade.

 

Trade is a security issue, and one that must be put just as high on the agenda as missiles and submarines. Countries that trade together do not fight wars against one another. Both world wars that devastated the twentieth century were presaged by a retreat into nativism, populism, and economic isolationism. Trade barriers went up, first to defend the imperial blocs of the 1910s, and then again as a wave of protectionism swept the globe in the 1930s. War, inevitably, followed. Quite different from the age of global free trade we now enjoy.

 

We’ve all heard that story. That as the Iron Curtain fell, we reached the “end of history”. All that was left was to acknowledge the supremacy of market capitalism. Eastern bloc countries embraced liberal reforms, China’s acceded to the WTO, the European Union expanded and adopted a common currency. And in the American hemisphere, CAFTA has followed NAFTA as trade barriers come down.

 

And we’ve all, equally, heard how that story is supposed to end: that global free trade has not equally distributed its benefits. That an industrial class has been left behind by a race-to-the-bottom. And that, in the United States, that has marked a turn towards populist reaction. Critics on both the left and right were particularly voluble in their criticisms of global trade pacts in the most recent election and the last few months have seen unbelievably reckless attempts to sabotage NAFTA. Progress on TPP has not obviously advanced since its troubled passage in the waning days of the Obama administration.

 

Which leaves TTIP in a vulnerable position. After some 15 rounds of negotiation, the US and the European Union is closer to a deal, but has not reached one. Some of our European allies may well be wondering about the appetite of their American friends for continuing those negotiations and getting a working deal. I am here to say that there is still definitely desire and passion on our side to get a deal done. I will be doing everything I can to persuade the de la Cruz administration to continue with a TTIP deal that results in a trade pact that brings the benefits of open and fair market access to the transatlantic relationship.

 

Similarly, Doha, Geneva and Nairobi have all seen failed attempts at restarting the process on the next round of WTO talks. Buenos Aires is next, and with a new city and an 11^th round of talks, the hope of more substantive process being made. At home I tend to make the case that a deal will benefit the agricultural producers who make up such an important contribution of the economy in my home state of Washington. And it’s certainly true, just as it’s true that reneging on NAFTA or dashing the TPP or TTIP deals would do immense harm to those producers. But it’s also true that getting a deal done is vital for global security.

 

When farmers in developing countries cannot afford to compete in the global market place, when women and children in developing countries go hungry or sick for lack of access to food or medicines that could be made available at fair market rates, those are the dark moments when warlords and terrorists thrive. Recruitment through hunger may be the most effective weapon in the arsenal of terrorists. Polio has been virtually wiped out across the globe, and it is no accident that the three countries where it lingers – Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria – are home to Islamist insurgencies that threaten health workers from accessing vulnerable populations. Without a global free trade pact, the Millennium Development Goals remain sadly out of reach.

 

These issues will never be solved without progress on the Development Round. Every country represented in this room will have to compromise, including the United States, but it will be worth it to achieve accord on a deal that could open up new opportunities for literally billions of people. Turning back to protectionism and isolationism is not an act of strength and does not fortify national governments: it undermines global security, and strengthens the hands of bad actors who can use the misery and poverty that ensues to recruit for their cause.

 

Trade is a global security issue, and anyone not taking trade seriously cannot posture any kind of strength on security.

 

Thank you.