SECURITY IN AN INTERDEPENDENT WORLD
Tufts' Fletcher School -- 2003 Commencement

Mohamed ElBaradei:
Director General,
International Atomic Energy Agency

Good afternoon and thank you — Dean Bosworth, members of The Fletcher School Board of Overseers, members of the faculty, alumni, family and friends of this graduating class, and especially the distinguished graduates of the Fletcher Class of 2003.

In this third millennium, the world is globalized and interdependent as never before. We live on a planet characterized by what some chaos theorists have called the ‘butterfly effect’ — a natural world so interactive and interdependent that a storm in New England may be created as a result of butterflies flapping their wings as far away as China. This notion of a ‘butterfly effect’ applies to all realms of human activity. At times I have experienced this phenomenon first-hand — because a remark I would make to a reporter in Tehran only hours later could be misquoted on a European television station and create a diplomatic row in Washington.

But more seriously, this interdependence has become the key feature of our modern world. Many aspects of modern life — global warming, Internet communication, the global marketplace, the war on terrorism, even the outbreak of SARS — all point to the fact that the human race has walked through a door that cannot be re-entered. With the rapid movement of people, goods, capital and ideas, the world you are inheriting has become interconnected like never before. The decisions you make — your votes, your career choices, your civic work — will be felt by your neighbors not only here but possibly in many parts of the globe.

Yet with all the strides we have made to connect on so many levels, we continue to be disconnected on many others. We think globally in terms of trade, but we continue to think locally in terms of violent conflicts. We cherish our connectivity on the Web, but our solidarity is less visible in matters of extreme poverty and repression. This is a mindset we need to change, and the sooner we make the transition — in recognition that human security is global and interdependent — the sooner we will achieve our goal of a planet with peace and justice as its hallmark.

Your renowned institution — The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy — was established in the 1930s, in the midst of the Great Depression, as an act of hope for internationalism — the theme of my address to you today. But seventy years after the establishment of The Fletcher School, we still face many of the same questions and the same challenges. Do we live in a world in which the values of peace and human dignity reign supreme, or in a world plagued by perpetual conflicts and intolerable inequities? In the wake of the Second World War, the framework of the United Nations was put in place to promote certain fundamental values and principles, including: respect for human rights and basic human dignity; economic and social development for all; the settlement of disputes through peaceful means; and prohibition of the use of force except in self defense or as a collective security measure authorized by the Security Council.

This international human project was interrupted for many decades by the long shadow of the Cold War — which led us at least twice to the brink of nuclear holocaust, and during which the lives and liberties of millions of people were sacrificed at the altar of brutal repression. But over a decade ago, with the self-destruction of the old Soviet empire, the gloom started to lift: hundreds of millions of people were emancipated, and the prospect of self-annihilation has drastically diminished.

Still, as we gather here today, your generation must reflect on a series of questions: Are we there yet? Does our planet live in peace and harmony? Do our neighbors around the globe live in a world free from want and in control of their own destiny? Do we treat our differences with mutual respect, and enrich ourselves through diversity?

We all know the answers to these questions. More importantly, however, we need to understand how to change course. But if we agree today on the diagnosis, our hope will be placed in you, the new generation, to work towards the remedy. And it is precisely young people like you, equipped with the tools of law and diplomacy, who are our best hope to initiate this healing process. As men and women trained in law, you are the social engineers who can adjust the structure of our interdependent world — and as future diplomats, you are the very ones who can put these adjustments into practice.

More than a decade ago, the birth of a much vaunted ‘new world order’ was heralded on the heels of the Cold War — yet such a new order unfortunately has not yet taken shape. Instead of the superpower rivalries of the Cold War, new dangers and challenges have risen to the fore, ranging from ethnic conflicts and cultural disputes to terrorism and the further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And in this new landscape, nuclear weapons have continued to have a position of prominence, as the currency of ultimate power.

Although a number of countries such as South Africa and Ukraine have given up their nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons ambitions, the nuclear umbrella of NATO and other alliances continue to expand. At the same time, the objectives embodied in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), developed in the late 1960s to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons and to move us towards nuclear disarmament, are under growing stress. Several thousands of nuclear weapons continue to exist, and more countries — at least eight or nine by the last count — are in possession of nuclear weapons, with others suspected of working to acquire them.

Still other countries have opted for the ‘poor man’s alternative’ by pursuing the acquisition of chemical and biological weapons. And in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001, the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction gained a new dimension: the prospect of sub-national terrorist groups seeking to acquire and use these weapons.

Must we conclude that the pre-emptive use of force to smother perceived threats to security is the new norm and model to pursue? Must we conclude that it is futile to rely on a collective, rule-based system of peace and security? I certainly hope not. But reliance on a system of collective security, in which international law is the organizing principle, will require bold thinking, a willingness to work together, and sustained effort — and it will require States and societies to see, think and act multilaterally.

Let me highlight for you some principal actions that will be essential to our success:

First, we must modernize and revamp the collective security system of the United Nations Charter — in terms of both preventive diplomacy and enforcement action. To start, the Security Council should be reconstituted to include the major political and economic powers of today’s world. In addition, new working concepts, tools and methods are needed to ensure that the Council can effectively discharge its role as the body with ‘the primary responsibility’ for the maintenance of international peace and security. For example, mechanisms are needed for early intervention to settle emerging disputes, and forces should be at the disposal of the Security Council that are adequate to deal with the myriad post-Cold-War situations and disputes — from supervising elections to maintaining law and order to controlling borders.

‘Smart’ sanctions should also be developed that target governments rather than the governed — particularly authoritarian governments such as the one that existed in Iraq, to avoid adding to the misery of the people while sparing their tormentors — a situation which I had the misfortune to witness firsthand. And use of the veto power should be subject to agreed limitations — possibly only those situations in which the use of force is to be authorized — to prevent having the entire Council fall victim to disagreements among its permanent members — another situation I witnessed firsthand on the eve of the Iraq war.

And when considering ‘threats to international peace and security’, the Council should include efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, as well as the brutal suppression of human rights — and should intervene early and effectively in these two situations, which are the cause of growing insecurity and instability in many parts of the world.

Second, we must create an environment in which, as foreseen in the UN Charter, the use of force is limited to situations of self-defence or enforcement measures authorized by the Security Council. Pre-emptive strikes, however tempting, can send the global community into uncharted and dangerous territory. Only an action authorized by the Council will bring international legitimacy and support to such a measure. More importantly, these limitations will restrict the use of force to those situations where force is indeed the last and only alternative.

Third, we must take concrete steps to de-legitimize the acquisition or use of weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, a new approach is needed — an approach that applies to all weapons of mass destruction, and would include: universal adherence to conventions that ban such weapons; robust and intrusive systems of verification for all related weapons conventions; a clear road map and the determination to eliminate these weapons in all States, to abolish over time the divide between the nuclear ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’; new doctrines of security that do not rely on the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons; and reliable enforcement measures, under the aegis of the Security Council, to effectively counter efforts by any country to illicitly acquire nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Fourth, we must develop a comprehensive regime to ensure that weapons of mass destruction and their components will not fall into the hands of terrorists. This demands an effective global approach to the physical protection of nuclear and other radioactive material and associated facilities, better controls for chemical and biological agents, and an effective approach to export controls worldwide.

Fifth, we must have the foresight to address decisively the chronic disputes that create the greatest incentives for acquiring such weapons. It is instructive that so many of the suspected efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction are to be found in the Middle East, a hotbed of instability for over half a century. In any future Middle East settlement, it is essential that regional security arrangements — including the establishment of a region free from such weapons — be pursued as part and parcel of such a settlement. The same should apply in any future settlement of such disputes, including the one currently in the spotlight on the Korean Peninsula. We must understand that peace and security are indivisible.

Finally, we must work collectively to address the root causes of insecurity and instability, including: the widening divide between rich and poor, in which two-fifth of the world’s population lives on less than two dollars per day; the chronic lack of good governance and respect for human rights — with despots in many parts of the world taking cover under the cloak of ‘sovereignty’; and the increasingly perceived schisms between cultures and civilizations.

Effective amelioration of these causes of insecurity will require adequate financial assistance by the developed countries — assistance that now shamefully stands at less than one-quarter of one percent of the combined gross national income of the developed countries- about half of the cost of the war in Iraq. Improving our performance in this ‘global distributive justice’ will go a long way towards addressing many of the social ills that affect our planet. Global respect for human rights should be the overarching norm, irrespective of any consideration of political expediency or short term interests.

Effective remedy will in addition require an increased focus by international institutions, governments, and civil society on encouraging interaction among cultures and people in order to promote mutual appreciation of our differences. More importantly, we must appreciate that what unites us is far, far greater than what divides us — and equally that what separates us, in terms of our beliefs, customs and traditions, are differences in which we should take pride and which should not be scorned, but cherished. None of us as mortals holds a monopoly on the ultimate truth; and yet all of us should continue to seek it, each in his or her own way.

This is a tall order. But if our aim is to spare future generations the prospect of conflicts and wars in which humanity could self-destruct, we have no other alternative. As President Kennedy said in 1963, “The pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war — and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.”

Let me remind you once again of the phenomenon I described at the outset: the phenomenon of the ‘butterfly effect.’ Your choices, your actions — and even your inaction — will have consequences not only for you, but also for your fellow human beings across the globe. I call upon you all to travel, to meet different people, to expose yourself to different cultures. Only then will you validate the main lesson of my own life experience: that there is only one human race, a race to which we all belong.