Williamsburg, Virginia -- "We can no longer afford to view Europe solely in East-West terms," U.S. Army General John Sheehan says, "nor can we continue to define security exclusively in a military context."

Sheehan, who is the commander of the U.S. Atlantic Command, told participants at a conference on Western security that opened in Williamsburg April 12 that "today's challenges are too complex and diffused" to define geography and security concepts in old ways.

"While the ideological divisions that dominated this century have disappeared," the military official said, "older, and even more virulent cultural and religious hatreds are beginning to replace those ideologies."

Conflict prevention "requires clear analysis, intellectual engagement, a plan, and sufficient resources to bring" it to fruition, he said. U.S. leaders are pursuing a policy of engagement today with former adversaries, the official said, instead of "isolating them in their period of transition."

The following are Sheehan's opening remarks at the conference, "Quests for Eastern Security Amid Global Uncertainty," jointly co-sponsored by the College of William and Mary and NATO's Supreme Allied Command Atlantic (SACLANT):

Following is the official text:

(begin text)

It is a pleasure to welcome each of you.

This conference represents another achievement in the professional relationship between the College of William and Mary and NATO's Allied Command, Atlantic. Our intellectual association has benefited both institutions; but as someone who has also paid the tuition bills for two William and Mary students, I must also report I also have a financial relationship with this great university.

The theme for this year's conference, "Quests for Western Security Amid Global Uncertainty" is extremely timely.

Today, 60,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, from NATO and non-NATO nations are in Bosnia attempting to give peace a chance in that war-torn country.

They are there on a noble yet difficult and complex mission, with implications that extend far beyond the geographic boundaries of Bosnia or even the former Yugoslavia.

The IFOR men and women are trying to end a civil war that has already resulted in Europe's worst bloodshed since the Second World War.

Distance did not isolate any of us from Bosnia's horror. In the Skynet CNN-era, these conflicts have intruded our homes everyday.

With Bosnia as a sobering backdrop, the trans-Atlantic Alliance is today debating a security framework, and its own future, with an eye on the potential repercussions of an uncertain outcome.

Like it or not, NATO's future is influenced by its success or failure in Bosnia. A return to war in that country could threaten the peace, security, and prosperity of all former Yugoslavian neighbors.

We have come a long way since those heady days of December, 1989, when we watched in amazement as the Berlin Wall came crashing down. At the time, many were predicting that the end of the Cold War signaled the end of conflict.

Yet some, like Lady Thatcher, knew better when she warned us that, "Euphoria is a bad master."

As we continue to bear witness to a period of dramatic political change and uncertainty around the world, the need for fresh perspectives, sober assessments and new ideas has never been greater.

This conference, with speakers and attendees from diverse backgrounds, cultures and generations should help us to articulate the opportunities and requirements for an emerging security framework.

Today, in a world devoid of the certainties of four decades of Cold War rules, parameters and solutions, many discussions on European security often lack substance and focus.

When one scratches the surface, it is clear that the conceptual foundation of many discussions are still built upon the thinking of a bygone, bipolar era.

We can no longer afford to view Europe solely in East-West terms, nor can we continue to define security exclusively in a military context.

Today's challenges are too complex and diffused. To build a common vision and coordinated response will require us to recognize that today's security challenges have political, economic, cultural and even environmental dimensions in addition to the familiar military dimension.

As we debate these issues, we should also address the consequences of failing to succeed. Politicians, journalists and pundits alike often use -- and overuse -- words like crisis and catastrophe when describing what will happen if we fail to meet today's challenges to adapt and strengthen existing security structures.

Yet the continued steep decline in defense spending by all NATO nations, and recent U.S. political campaigning, indicate that many citizens in our nations remain unconvinced as to why they need to stay engaged.

While trying to make sense of Europe's current security environment, I recently turned to a book on European history written by a professor from the University of Chicago.

In his final chapter of his book, titled, "On the Threshold of a New Century," the author lists the numerous political and economic achievements European nations have made over the past century, and what they mean for Europe's future.

The author made a convincing argument that political and economic interaction signaled that Europe was entering a new era, where diplomacy, negotiation and cooperation would replace conflict.

Unfortunately, the author's hypothesis was a little too optimistic. You see, the book was published in 1911.

Within seven years of publication, over 10 million people would perish on the plains of Europe -- including over 100,000 Americans and 60,000 Canadians -- in what was then called the Great War, or "the war to end all wars."

Despite those tragic losses, the victors were still unable to build a workable security system in the aftermath of the Great War, and within a quarter-century, another war in Europe would consume 50 million more lives, including over 250,000 Americans and 42,000 Canadians.

When one reads about the events in the post-First World War years, one is struck by how the League of Nations, despite its great promise of collective security, failed because of dissention and distrust between allies.

Following the carnage of the Second World War, people of vision and courage were determined not to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors at Versailles.

One of those visionaries, General George C. Marshall, understood the challenges involved in building global security on the ashes of a world war when he said:

"If man does find the solution for world peace it will be the most revolutionary reversal we have ever known."

As a veteran of the Great War, he knew the consequences if European economic, political and defense institutions failed to recover from the Second World War.

He also grasped how difficult it is for nations to maintain their focus and commitment in a postwar environment.

Yet his vision was inclusive in focus and nonbelligerent in tone. As he stated in his famous Harvard speech outlining what eventually became known as the Marshall Plan:

"...Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist."

General Marshall's vision and achievements at the end of the Second World War resulted in a prosperous and peaceful Western Europe, but his vision of a united Europe was soon thwarted by the Cold War.

Learning from the post-World War II experience, our current leaders have wisely pursued a policy of engagement with our former adversaries rather than isolating them in their period of transition.

To date, NATO and its member nations have worked hard to bring NATO and former Warsaw Pact militaries together in the aftermath of the Cold War.

The primary vehicle for this interaction has been the partnership for Peace Program or PFP which was established in January 1994. Since then, we have conducted a number of exercises and training activities with a number of former Warsaw Pact nations, and the new militaries of the former Soviet Union.

For example, last year we conducted the first Partnership for Peace (PFP) exercise on U.S. territory. In an exercise called Cooperative Nugget at Fort Polk, Louisiana, we brought over 4,300 troops from 14 PFP nations, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S., along with observers from 11 other PFP nations for three weeks of intensive peacekeeping training.

Last year, we also conducted two bilateral exercises which brought Ukrainian and Russian troops to the United States to work with their U.S. counterparts.

These military-to-military contacts have already paid impressive dividends.

Today, Russia and the Ukraine are among many PFP nations who are working side-by-side with U.S. and other NATO allies as part of the IFOR in Bosnia.

Preliminary reports indicate the level of cooperation between IFOR and their PFP counterparts has been much better than some would have predicted.

Yet despite the initial success of IFOR, we must continuously ask ourselves: Is it a coincidence that a major conflict at the beginning and end of this century has had its epicenter in a place called Sarajevo?

Are our security agreements and institutions up to the task of providing true collective security or are they modern equivalents of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations?

Today, while the ideological divisions that dominated this century have disappeared, older, and even more virulent cultural and religious hatreds are beginning to replace those ideologies.

History teaches us that preventing conflict requires much more than good intentions or wishful thinking. It requires clear analysis, intellectual engagement, a plan, and sufficient resources to bring that plan to fruition.

While not perfect, we know from the NATO experience of the last half-century that collective security works. Yet, for collective security to be truly effective, it requires a sincere commitment from all participants, and a major investment in time, effort and resources.

As we near the end of the most violent and destructive century in history, our challenge is to learn from the costly lessons of the 20th century so we can implement practical solutions to enduring security problems, and prevent another slide into self-isolation.

This symposium is about exchanging and clarifying our ideas so we can seize this historic opportunity, that is, to fulfill Marshall's vision.

Over the next two days we will hear from many distinguished speakers: diplomats, scholars, journalists and a former head of government -- Lady Thatcher.

Such an intellectual exchange is essential if we are to make sense of this emerging world, and more important, to sow the seeds of cooperation that will help us achieve in the post-Cold War era what General Marshall and his contemporaries tried so hard to accomplish after the Second World War.

As you listen to these distinguished speakers, remember that our goal remains to assess contemporary U.S. and European security issues and to develop new ideas or a consensus on how to restructure our security framework to meet the challenges of the next century.

Since we are entering uncharted waters, all of us can contribute in the development of new strategies and innovative programs that will allow us to wisely use our limited resources to deal a with new global security environment.

Most important, we hope this conference will help us develop a common vision; a vision of where we want to be in the future that is not tied to where we happen to be at this moment in time, and definitely not where we were in the past.

Only then will General Marshall's vision of a secure, stable, and democratic Alliance come to fruition.

Thank You.

(end text)