STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL REMARKS ON MISSILE DEFENSE AND EUROPEAN SECURITY

Photo:  Missile Launch.  Credit:  U.S. DOD.
FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Missile Defense and European Security
Remarks Frank A. Rose
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance8th International Conference on Missile Defence
Paris, France
July 3, 2012
Thank you so much for inviting me to speak today. This venue provides an opportunity for constructive dialogue on missile defense, and in this context, I will share an update on the U.S. approach to missile defense. At the State Department, I am responsible for overseeing a wide range of defense policy issues, including missile defense. In that capacity, it was my responsibility to negotiate the details of the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) agreements with Poland, Romania, and Turkey that will enable the United States to implement the European Phased Adaptive Approach, the U.S. contribution to NATO missile defense. I will touch more on this later in my presentation, but suffice to say that I have been focused over the last couple of years on ensuring that we are able to meet the vision President Obama laid out in his 2009 announcement regarding the European Phased Adaptive Approach.

Missile Defense Policy
Today, there is a growing threat from short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles to our deployed forces, allies, and partners. This threat is likely to increase in both quantitative and qualitative terms in the coming years, as some states are increasing their inventories, and making their ballistic missiles more accurate, reliable, and survivable.

Recognizing the seriousness of the ballistic missile threat, the United States seeks to create an environment, based on strong cooperation with allies and partners, which will diminish an adversary’s confidence in the effectiveness of ballistic missile attacks. This will devalue ballistic missiles and provide a disincentive for their development, acquisition, deployment, and use. To that end, President Obama has made international cooperation on missile defense a key priority, and we are pursuing a region-by-region approach based on the following three principles:

1) First, the United States will strengthen regional deterrence architectures built upon solid cooperative relationships with an eye toward efficiently incorporating assets and structures that our partners already have today or are seeking.

2) Second, the United States is pursuing phased adaptive approaches (PAAs) to missile defense within key regions that are tailored to their unique deterrence requirements and threats, including the scale, scope, and pace of their development, and the capabilities available and most suited for deployment. Specifically, we will phase in the best available technology to meet existing and evolving threats, and adapt to situations that evolve in the future.

3) Third, recognizing that our supply of missile defense assets cannot meet the global demand we face, the United States is developing mobile capabilities that can be relocated to adapt to a changing threat and provide surge defense capabilities where they are most needed.

Missile defense plays an important role in the broader U.S. international security strategy, supporting both deterrence and diplomacy. Missile defense assures our allies and partners that the United States has the will and the means to deter and, if necessary, defeat a limited ballistic missile attack against the U.S. homeland and regional ballistic missile attacks against our deployed forces, allies, and partners.

NATO and European Missile Defense
Today I will focus on our work in Europe, which continues to receive a great deal of attention. In order to augment the defense of the United States against a future long-range threat and provide more comprehensive and more rapid protection to our deployed forces and European Allies against the current short- and medium- range threat, President Obama outlined a four-phase approach for European missile defense called the European Phased Adaptive Approach or EPAA. Through the EPAA, the United States will deploy increasingly capable BMD assets to defend Europe against a ballistic missile threat from the Middle East that is increasing both quantitatively and qualitatively.

The EPAA is designed to protect our deployed forces and Allies in Europe, as well as improve protection of the U.S. homeland against potential ICBMs from the Middle East. As part of Phase 1, we have deployed to Turkey a missile defense radar, referred to as the AN/TPY-2 radar in support of NATO’s common missile defense efforts. Also, as part of Phase 1, the United States deployed a BMD-capable Aegis ship to the Mediterranean Sea in March of 2011, and has maintained a BMD-capable ship presence in the region ever since.

Slightly more than a year ago, we reached an agreement with Romania to host a U.S. land-based SM-3 BMD interceptor site, designed to extend missile defense protection to a greater portion of Europe. The land-based SM-3 system to be deployed to Romania is anticipated to become operational in the 2015 timeframe. We also reached an agreement with Poland to place a similar U.S. BMD interceptor site there in the 2018 timeframe, which will extend missile defense protection to all of NATO Europe. Spain has also agreed to host four U.S. Aegis destroyers at the existing naval facility at Rota. These multi-mission ships will support the EPAA as well as other EUCOM and NATO maritime missions.

The Obama Administration is implementing the EPAA within the NATO context. At the 2010 Lisbon Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government approved a new Strategic Concept and took the historic decision to develop the capability to defend NATO European populations and territory against the increasing threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation. The Allies also welcomed the EPAA as a U.S. national contribution to the new NATO territorial missile defense capability, in support of our commitment to the collective defense of the Alliance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

At the Lisbon Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government also decided to expand the scope of the NATO Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) program to serve as the command, control, and communications network to support this new capability. NATO allies have committed to investing over $1 billion for command, control, and communications infrastructure to support NATO missile defense. NATO’s plan for missile defense is based on the principle that individual Allies will make voluntary national contributions of the sensors and interceptor systems, BMD capabilities that will be integrated into the NATO ALTBMD C2 backbone. As with any national contribution, Allies are responsible for the costs associated with their own contributions. NATO agreed at Chicago that only the command and control systems of ALTBMD and their expansion to territorial defense are eligible for common funding.

On May 20-21, the NATO Heads of State and Government met in Chicago for the NATO Summit and announced that NATO has achieved an interim BMD capability. This means that the Alliance has an operationally meaningful standing peacetime ballistic missile defense capability. NATO also agreed on the command and control procedures for ballistic missile defense, designated Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) as the commander for this mission, and demonstrated an interoperable command and control capability. As with all of NATO’s operations, full political control by Allies over military actions undertaken pursuant to Interim Capability will be ensured.

To support this interim BMD capability, the United States will offer EPAA assets to the Alliance as voluntary national contributions to the BMD mission, and will welcome contributions by other Allies. For example, President Obama announced in Chicago that he has directed the transfer of the AN/TPY-2 radar deployed in Turkey to NATO operational control. The EPAA also includes BMD-capable Aegis ships that can perform many roles besides BMD. U.S. missile defense-capable ships in Europe are able to operate under NATO operational control when necessary.

These decisions have created a framework for Allies to contribute and optimize their own BMD assets for our collective defense, and the United States welcomes contributions from other Allies. We believe that NATO missile defense will be more effective should Allies decide to provide sensors and interceptors to complement the U.S. EPAA contributions. If Allies should decide to develop their own missile defense capabilities, that would create significant opportunities for European industries. In short, there is absolutely no requirement or assumption that NATO missile defense will be “made in the USA.” The only requirement is that the systems contributed by Allies be interoperable with NATO's missile defense command and control capability. Several NATO Allies possess land- and sea-based sensors that could be linked into the system, as well as lower tier systems that can be integrated and used to provide point defense. For example, the Netherlands has indicated that it will spend close to 250 million Euros to modify the radars on its frigates to detect and track ballistic missiles at long ranges and has indicated it will contribute its Patriot BMD systems to the NATO missile defense mission. There are potentially many more opportunities for joint development and procurement.

Russia
An update on missile defense cooperation with Europe should also include a discussion of our efforts to pursue cooperation with the Russian Federation. Missile defense cooperation with Russia is a Presidential priority, as it has been for several Administrations going back to President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

When President Obama announced his new vision for missile defense in Europe in September 2009, he stated that “we welcome Russia’s cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests.” Missile defense cooperation with Russia will not only strengthen our bilateral and NATO-Russia relationships, but also could enhance NATO’s missile defense capabilities. Successful missile defense cooperation would provide concrete benefits to Russia, our NATO Allies, and the United States and will strengthen – not weaken – strategic stability over the long term.

This means it is important to get the Russian Federation inside the missile defense tent now, working alongside the United States and NATO, while we are in the early stages of our efforts. Close cooperation between Russia and the United States and NATO is the best and most enduring way for Russia to gain the assurance that European missile defenses cannot and will not undermine its strategic deterrent.
Russia is not being asked to blindly trust us. Through cooperation, Russia would see firsthand that this system is designed for the ballistic missile threat from outside the Euro-Atlantic area, and that NATO missile defense systems will not undermine Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent capabilities. Cooperation would send a strong message to proliferators that the United States, NATO, and Russia are working together to counter their efforts.

That said, Russia has raised the issue of wanting a legal guarantee with a set of “military-technical criteria” that could, in effect, create limitations on our ability to develop and deploy future missile defense systems against regional ballistic missile threats such as those presented by Iran and North Korea. We have made it clear that we cannot and will not accept limitations on our ability to defend ourselves, our allies, and our partners, including where we deploy our BMD-capable Aegis ships. These are multi-mission ships that are used for a variety of purposes around the world, not just for missile defense.

While we seek to develop ways to cooperate with Russia on missile defense, it is important to remember that under the terms of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO alone bears responsibility for defending the Alliance from the ballistic missile threat. This is why the United States and NATO cannot agree to Russia’s proposal for “sectoral” missile defense. Just as Russia must ensure the defense of Russian territory, NATO must ensure the defense of NATO territory. NATO cannot and will not outsource its Article 5 commitments.

We would, however, be willing to agree to a political framework for cooperation that includes a statement that our missile defenses are not oriented toward Russia. Any such statement would publicly proclaim our intent to work together and chart the direction for cooperation.

During the G-20 Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, President Obama and President Putin announced in their June 18 Joint Statement that “despite differences in assessments, we have agreed to continue a joint search for solutions to challenges in the field of missile defense.”

The United States looks forward to continuing discussions with the Russian Federation to develop a mutually agreed framework for missile defense cooperation.

I want to close by noting the obvious which is that the worst-case scenario for dealing with missile threats is after a missile has launched. We are taking several steps diplomatically to counter missile proliferation and address missile programs of concern. We are working with the other 33 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Partners to create the global standard for controlling the transfer of equipment, software, and technology that could make a contribution to rockets and unmanned aerial vehicles. We also are working to support the efforts of the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC), and are working through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to help partners improve their ability to stop shipments of proliferation concern. Those are just some of the efforts that are ongoing to address missile threats, and while we do this work quietly, these efforts are having an impact.

Conclusion
Let me conclude by saying that today’s ballistic missile threats continue to increase in number and sophistication. This increasing threat reinforces the importance of our collaborative missile defense efforts with allies and partners around the world, which not only strengthen regional stability, but also provide protection for our forces serving abroad and augment the defense of the United States.
Thank you for your time and attention.

D-DAY LANDINGS REMEMBERED

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Task Force 68, which is made up of paratroopers from U.S., Germany, France, Holland, and the United Kingdom, re-enacted the D-Day airborne operation on the La Fiere fields near Sainte-Mere-Eglise, France, June 3, 2012. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Sharilyn Wells  

Veterans, Contemporary Warriors Salute D-Day Landings
By Army Staff Sgt. Rick Scavetta
American Forces Press Service
SAINTE-MÈRE-EGLISE, France, June 6, 2012 - When Eugene Cook jumped into Normandy during the predawn hours of June 6, 1944, he landed several miles from his intended drop zone.

Alone in the dark French countryside, the young 101st Airborne Division paratrooper from Georgia assembled his rifle, got his bearings and began looking for other Americans among Normandy's hedgerows. In the days and weeks that followed, Cook took part in the now-famous battles that began the liberation of France and led to Allied victory over Nazi Germany.

Cook, 87, was among the handful of World War II veterans who attended the 68th anniversary of the D-Day landings here this week. U.S. service members from all the military branches took part in honoring the veterans, something Cook said he was glad to see.

"We have to commemorate the lives of the guys we left here," Cook said. "They gave their lives for us, and we should show them thanks."

Known as Operation Overlord, the D-Day landings of June 6, 1944, combined U.S. and Allied air drops with beach landings along Normandy's coast. U.S. paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Infantry Divisions dropped onto the Cotenin peninsula to secure bridges, roads and towns vital to allowing the troops landing at nearby Utah Beach to move inland.
"That day, 68 years ago, as American blood mixed with French soil, it cemented even further the strong bonds between our two nations," said U.S. Army Secretary John McHugh said as visited the La Fiere drop zone.

For the returning veterans there was a mix of feelings -- glad to be alive and sharing good times and sorrowful memories of those who'd died.

Yesterday -- a cold and overcast day -- John Perrozi walked between rows of white marble gravestones at the Normandy American Cemetery, overlooking Omaha Beach. He stopped at one cross and then another, paying his respects to several buddies who died fighting in Normandy. As an 82nd Airborne Division paratrooper, Perozzi fought on D-Day with the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment. It was his first trip back since the war.
During a June 3 ceremony at the La Fière drop zone, a battlefield where Perozzi fought, he received France's highest military medal, the Légion d'Honneur. Before the ceremony, thousands of spectators watched as U.S. and international paratroopers recreate D-Day's airborne operations -- jumping from U.S. Air Force planes onto the "Iron Mike" drop zone near the La Fière bridge -- at the Mederet River just west of Sainte-Mère-Eglise.
Soldiers from the Fort Bragg, N.C.,-based U.S. Army Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Command and the Kaiserslautern, Germany-based 5th Quartermaster Detachment were among the hundreds of paratroopers who took part.

The Liberty Jump Team, which includes veterans from other conflicts and civilian parachutists, also jumped. Dave De Soucy, a retired officer from California who served in combat with the 101st Airborne Division during Vietnam, was one of the first to land in La Fiere's marshy drop zone -- an area that was flooded on D-Day where several 82nd paratroopers drowned on D-Day, stuck in their chutes and harnesses. Packing up his chute, De Soucy said commemorative jumps honor World War II paratroopers, but also remind people about our current military operations.

"It's an almost overwhelming experience," said De Soucy, pausing as emotions welled inside him. "We've got to remember the folks who did it and those who still do it -- the one percent who go into harm's way for the benefit of the [other] 99 percent."

Afterward, Charles Rivkin, U.S. Ambassador to France, jumped with the Golden Knights, the U.S. Army's parachute demonstration team. Then spectators, dignitaries, soldiers and veterans gathered on the grassy slope nearby for a series of commemorative speeches and wreath presentations.

John Roman, 87, who came ashore with the 4th Infantry Division, was surprised to hear a German military band at the ceremony, playing "Glory, Glory Hallelujah." Seeing German troops didn't bother him, he said.

"You've got to forget, some time," Roman said. "It's good that they are here. Maybe, the world will be better off."

Toward the end of the war, Roman met a young French woman, Jacqueline, at a café. They've been married 66 years and had six children, she said. Each year, they come back, as Roman wants to remember buddies he lost, she said.

When wind gusts caught the beret of a German soldier, Jacqueline Roman watched in amazement as Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, commander of U.S. Army Europe, walked over and knelt down to pick up the beret off the dirt, then handed it back to the German.
"That's the American way," she said. "That was wonderful."

After World War II, there were 16 million living American veterans. Now, many are reaching their final years. U.S. troops cherished the opportunity to speak with them, to shake their hands and hear their stories.

"You can learn firsthand about history from these veterans," Hertling said. "Not a lot has changed. They had the same fears and anxiety as they went into combat and the trauma from the things they faced. They teach our soldiers a lot about what that means."
One older paratrooper hugged Army Staff Sgt. Rachel Medley, 34, of Eureka, Calif., who serves with the Golden Knights. Meeting soldiers from World War II is humbling, she said.

"They paved the path for the way the world is today," Medley said. "The time is rapidly approaching when it won't be living history anymore. It will be just something we read about in books because there will be no one who witnessed this. For us to be here and say thank you, it's a huge honor to be in their presence."

U.S. troops and veterans marched through Sainte-Mère-Eglise, where they were honored with a banquet in the town square. Similar events were held throughout the area during the days leading up to this year's D-Day commemoration.

Earlier in the week, on June 2, U.S. Special Operations Forces demonstrated a high altitude, low opening jump near the historic Norman town of Mont Saint Michel. Army Capt. Stephen Cargill, an officer from the Stuttgart, Germany-based 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group, said free falling above Normandy meant a lot to him.
"It's just amazing to get the opportunity to see something so incredible," Cargill said. "It hits that much closer to home, to land on hallowed ground."

One evening, Cargill and fellow Special Forces soldiers relaxed outdoors near the Stop Café, a famous gathering spot in Sainte-Mère-Eglise. Troops mingled with French people wearing old-fashioned uniforms. One Dutch teen, Rob Van Meel, 13, cautiously approached the Green Berets in his authentic World War II uniform of a 101st Airborne Division soldier.

While many French children ask U.S. troops for a souvenir, Van Meel just asked about their patches. Impressed with Van Meel's detailed uniform, Army Master Sgt. Damon Storey got down and presented Van Meel with a set of combat jump wings -- a treasured possession. Van Meel attended D-Day anniversaries in Normandy every year of his life, he said. In fact, his first costume was as a World War II ammunition box at just 3 months old. He thanked Storey, but said he wouldn't wear the jump wings on the Screaming Eagles uniform, as it wouldn't have been historically correct.

A handful of aging U.S. and Allied veterans attended several ceremonies over the course of week. Ellan Levitsky Orkin, 92, and her sister Dorothy, 95, who served together in Normandy as U.S. Army nurses, were offered honorary French citizenship during a June 4 ceremony in Bolleville. They helped unveil a new memorial to World War II medics, near where they served with the 164th Field Hospital. They come back every year, but they don't quite understand all the excitement, Orkin said.

"We came and had a job to do and we went home," she said. "When we went home, nobody asked us questions then and we didn't talk about it. It was too painful."
Still, some veterans are willing to share their tales. And they don't mind using newer technology if it means bridging the gap of miles. Milt Staley, 93, of Redding, Calif., waded through chest-deep surf onto Utah Beach on D-Day with the 4th Infantry Division. He first returned in 2011 and has since kept in touch with his French friends on Facebook.
When Staley visits the church at Sainte-Mère-Eglise, he remembers occupying foxholes dug earlier by 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers. Afterward, Staley fought with the 90th Infantry Division and was wounded in combat. Coming back to France is not about reliving the horrors of war, he said. It's about sharing time with people in France.
"I was never hugged and kissed and thanked so much for what we did," Staley said. "It amazed and overwhelmed me and I think I'll never forget it."

Cook, on the other hand, has returned many times. He also looks forward to seeing people he's met before, plus reflecting on some of his wartime thoughts, he said.

"This brings back the memories of the guys we were with here," Cook said. "It's important that we rededicate ourselves to their sacrifice and D-Day helps us do that."

STATE DEPARTMENT ON THE CHANGING FACE OF ANTI-SEMITISM

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Identifying the Trend: the Changing Face of Anti-Semitism and Implications for Europe and Sweden
Remarks Hannah Rosenthal
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Institute for Security and Development Policy
Stockholm, Sweden
April 25, 2012
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for welcoming me here today. I would like to thank the Institute of Security and Development Policy for hosting this forum on the Changing Face of Anti-Semitism and Implications for Europe and Sweden. Thank you also for inviting me to speak and share my thoughts on this important topic. As the United States’ Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism, I am also honored to present alongside my esteemed colleagues, Dr. Henrik Bachner, Dr. David Hirsh, Dr. Mikael Tossavainen, and Professor Jean-Yves Camus. Also, thank you Minister Birgitta Ohlsson for your introduction.

This visit, while brief, is extremely important and timely. The world was shaken last month when an attacker murdered one adult and three children outside a Jewish school in Toulouse, France—just days after murdering three French soldiers of North African descent in the nearby city of Montauban. While we are decades removed from the Holocaust, anti-Semitism remains a serious problem in Europe. There are still many urgent lessons that we must learn from Hitler’s genocide of the Jewish people. One of these lessons is, however, about the human capacity for courage and strength. This year, the governments of Sweden and Hungary officially designated 2012 as the “Raoul Wallenberg Year” to honor and commemorate the courage of this young Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Jews from the Nazi killing machine in Hungary.

Let me begin by explaining that the Obama Administration is unwavering in its commitment to combat hate and promote tolerance in our world, including in the United States. The President began his Administration speaking out against intolerance as a global ill.

Over the past three years, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made human rights and the need to respect diversity an integral part of U.S. foreign policy—from the human rights of LGBT people to women’s rights, to international religious freedom. Recently she was in Tunisia where she declared: “The rights and dignity of human beings cannot be denied forever, no matter how oppressive a regime may be. The spirit of human rights and human dignity lives within each of us, and the universal aspirations have deep and lasting power.”

President Obama and Secretary Clinton have honored me with this appointment, and have elevated my office and fully integrated it into the State Department.

As a child of a Holocaust survivor, anti-Semitism is something very personal to me. My father was arrested on Kristallnacht, the unofficial pogrom that many think started the Holocaust – and was sent with many of his congregants to prison and then to Buchenwald. He was the lucky one – every other person in his family perished at Auschwitz. I have dedicated my life to eradicating anti-Semitism and intolerance with a sense of urgency and passion that only my father could give me.

Over the past two and a half years, my staff and I have diligently reported on anti-Semitic incidents throughout Europe, following and tracking developments in new and old cases. We have classified these incidents into six trends, which provide a comprehensive framework from which we can analyze anti-Semitism in Europe.

First of all, anti-Semitism is not History, it is News. I run into people who think anti-Semitism ended when Hitler killed himself. More than six decades after the end of the Second World War, anti-Semitism is still alive and well, and evolving into new, contemporary forms of religious hatred, racism, and political, social and cultural bigotry. According to reports done by the governments of Norway, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, there is a disturbing increase in anti-Semitism in those countries.
According to a recent ADL survey, anti-Semitic attitudes remain at “disturbingly high levels” in ten European countries. The survey found that anti-Semitic attitudes in Hungary have risen to 63 percent from 47 percent in 2009, and in the United Kingdom, to 17 percent from 10 percent in 2009.

Although a separate study found that the number of reported anti-Semitic crimes decreased from 250 to 161 from 2009 to 2010, government officials nonetheless recognized that anti-Semitism was a problem in Sweden, especially in the city of Malmo.
The statistics are troubling, and stem, in part, from the fact that the first trend, traditional forms of anti-Semitism are passed from one generation to the next, and sometimes updated to reflect current events. We are all familiar with hostile acts such as the defacing of property and the desecration of cemeteries with anti-Semitic graffiti. Between June and December of 2011, we saw desecrations to Holocaust memorials, synagogues, and Jewish cemeteries in Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Lithuania, and Poland. There are still some accusations of blood libel, which are morphing from the historic accusations dating from the Roman Empire and other ancient cultures, repeated later by some Christians and Muslims, that Jews killed children to use their blood for rituals, or kidnapped children to steal their organs. Most recently, a Hungarian parliamentarian from the far-right Jobbik party invoked a centuries-old blood libel case in the Hungarian parliament. The Hungarian government quickly condemned the speech – the right response to such hate speech - although the impact of such horrible statements, even when refuted, remains.

In Sweden, anti-Semitic incidents have included threats, verbal abuse, vandalism, graffiti, and harassment in schools. I am particularly concerned about the situation in Malmo, which is not just serious but acute. In Malmo, the synagogue, which is a place for the community to gather and worship, has become a site of anti-Semitic slurs and vandalism. The synagogue heen fortified to be not just bullet-proof, but according to local Jewish community leaders, rocket-proof. But even with enhanced security including security guards, passersby still shout slogans like “Heil Hitler.” And the Rabbi of Malmo has been assaulted almost two dozen times in the past two years. In the fall of last year, the Swedish government increased its funding to provide security for the Jewish community. We appreciate this action but more must be done to reverse the trend.

Conspiracy theories unfortunately have traction with some groups, such as supposed Jewish control of the U.S. media and the world banking system, or that Jews were involved in executing the September 11 attacks. The recent ADL survey confirmed that some Europeans believe Jews have too much power in the business world and in international financial markets.
Conspiracy theories are present in Sweden as well. In August at the government’s request, the state-run Living History Forum published a report that found conspiracy theories target Jews for alleged attempts at global and financial domination.

A second trend is Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is being espoused by religious and political leaders, and is a standard on hateful websites and other media outlets. Holocaust denial still remains a challenge in some of diplomatic engagements with countries that are trying to come to terms with their moral responsibility to prosecute Nazi war criminals and denounce the past crimes of their citizens. As the generation of Holocaust survivors and death camp liberators reaches their eighties and nineties, the window is closing on those able to provide eyewitness accounts.

A third, disturbing trend is Holocaust glorification – which can be seen in events that openly display Nazi symbols, in the growth of neo-Nazi groups, and is especially virulent in Middle East media – some that is state owned and operated - calling for a new Holocaust to finish the job. Truly bone-chilling. Following a March 2011 commemoration in Latvia, a notorious neo-Nazi made blatantly anti-Semitic statements, including incitements to violence against Jews, on a television talk show.

Satellite TV is sometimes exploited by hate-mongerers to propagate anti-Semitic views. Some Middle Eastern satellite channels integrate anti-Semitic rhetoric into programming that reaches into Europe. Such broadcasts can have a negative impact on European citizens and residents who are already predisposed to anti-Semitic beliefs. Some of these programs, mostly out of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are seen by tens of millions of Europeans.

A fourth concern is Holocaust relativism – where some governments, museums, academic research and the like are conflating the Holocaust with other terrible events that entailed great human suffering, like the Dirty War or the Soviet regime.

No one, least of all myself, wants to weigh atrocities against each other, but to group these horrific chapters of history together is not only historically inaccurate, but also misses opportunities to learn important lessons from each of these historic events, even as we reflect on universal truths about the need to defend human rights and combat hatred in all of its forms.

The Holocaust is trivialized when spiteful politicians compare their opponents to Hitler. History must be precise – it must instruct, it must warn, and it must inspire us to learn the particular and universal values as we prepare to mend this fractured world.

The fifth trend reflects new forms of anti-Semitism which blur the lines between opposition to the policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism. What I hear from our diplomatic missions, and from non-governmental organizations alike, is that this happens easily and often. I want to be clear – legitimate criticism of policies of the State of Israel is not anti-Semitism.

All democracies should welcome differing positions, but we do record huge increases in anti-Semitic acts throughout Europe whenever there are hostilities in the Middle East. During the 2008-2009 conflict in the Gaza strip, anti-Semitic violence increased in Malmo, and in December 2008, anti-Semitic violence broke out against the Jewish community during a peaceful gathering in support of ALL the victims in the conflict. In 2010, leaders of the Swedish Jewish community received threatening messages and calls in conjunction with the Gaza flotilla incident.

This form of anti-Semitism is more difficult for many to identify, as it is not the objection to a policy of the State of Israel. When individual Jews are effectively banned or their conferences boycotted, or are held responsible for Israeli policy – this is not objecting to a policy – this is aimed at the collective Jew and is anti-Semitism.

Natan Sharansky, the great human rights activist in the former Soviet Union, identified when he believes criticism crosses the line: It is anti-Semitic when Israel is demonized, held to different standards, or delegitimized.

The sixth trend is the growing nationalistic movements which target “the other” – be they immigrants, or religious and ethnic minorities – in the name of protecting the identity and “purity” of nations.

Extremist far-right parties have been increasingly gaining popular support throughout Europe. Far right groups have now entered parliaments in Austria, France, Hungary, Italy, and the Netherlands. These extremist parties run and gain popular support through anti-immigration and racist platforms.

In Sweden, Jews have begun to march against these trends and the violent anti-Semitism that has come to permeate their lives. After Saturday services, members of Malmo’s Jewish community go on walks wearing visibly Jewish symbols. Some non-Jews have joined their walks, also wearing kippot in solidarity with the vulnerable Jewish community.
In June, five young Swedish Muslim men from Malmo organized a class trip to the Auschwitz extermination camp and filmed a documentary about it. Their initiative is a shining example of how we can all strive to counter hate and reverse the dual trends of Holocaust denial and intolerance.

When this fear or hatred of the “other” occurs or when people try to find a scapegoat for the instability around them, it is never good for the Jews, or for that matter, other traditionally discriminated against minorities. The history of Europe, with pogroms, Nazism, and ethnic cleansing, provides sufficient evidence. And when public figures talk about protecting a country’s purity, we’ve seen that movie before.I encourage Muslim and Jewish communities in Sweden and throughout all of Europe to build bridges and work together to refute this trend.

One way to do this is through education. One story that should be taught is that of Sweden’s own Raoul Wallenberg. Wallenberg was a young businessman when, in 1944, he accepted a diplomatic appointment to Nazi-occupied Hungary on a mission to save Hungarian Jews. By that time in the war, the Allied forces had learned of the Nazi extermination camps. Under diplomatic cover and with the help of colleagues and other individuals, Wallenberg was able to save thousands of Hungarian Jews between July and December 1944. He did so by issuing fake passports and hiding Jews in buildings he rented and declared property of the Swedish government. He did it with the full support of the government of Sweden. Wallenberg’s story is one of courage and selflessness.
Wallenberg’s acts of courage – along with those of other rescuers – should inspire us all to stand up to hate and face it squarely. We may, one day, find ourselves confronted with the same choice. It is not the easy choice. But it is the right one. We can learn from these rescuers about what it means to commit an act that is not easy, not profitable, but moral.
Government leaders play a very important role in condemning and combating anti-Semitism. They must be sensitive and thoughtful, and they must state—in clear and unequivocal terms—that anti-Semitism and all forms of hate are destabilizing and contrary to democratic norms. Our leaders must not fall victim to the trends I have just spoken about: they must not hold Jews responsible for Israel’s actions or blame the Jewish people for anti-Semitism; they must not deny the presence of anti-Semitic violence and behavior, or fuel inter-religious hatred or discord. Our local and national government officials must confront the root causes of hatred in their societies and protect the victims, rather than vilify them.

So while I fight anti-Semitism, I am also aware that hate is hate. Nothing justifies it – not economic instability and not international events.

If we educate diverse people about the current trends of anti-Semitism, if we call out propaganda and lies, stereotypes and myths, if we condemn indifference and intolerance, if we educate, especially young people about what is possible, if we highlight people who did the right thing, if we learn about how Jews lived, not only how they died, if we utilize old technologies and new forms of communication to inform and inspire, if we sensitively instruct and train teaching about the particular universal lessons of the Holocaust, we can move the needle against all forms of hatred.

I would like to thank the Institute for Security and Development Policy for holding this pressing conference and to speak before you. I look forward to our future collaboration, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.