Freedom, Health, and Prosperity: America's Agenda for the 21st CenturyPaula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global AffairsRemarks to the Helms International Diplomacy Lecture Washington, DC March 15, 2004 Thank you Steve, for that kind introduction. Also thank you, Senator Wirth, and the Better World Campaign for supporting this lecture series. Special thanks also goes to Barbour Griffith and Rogers and the Jesse Helms Center for making this event possible, and I would like to pay a special tribute to the many former Helms staffers present tonight. It’s an honor to be here to launch what promises to be an important and useful forum to express viewpoints on American foreign policy, and especially America’s leadership role and engagement of the world.
I commend all of you on your efforts, and I think you have set in motion a lecture program that will grow to be a key to discourse on American statecraft -- one that is worthy of the name of Senator Helms, who in his long career kept the interests of the American people very close to his heart and who was an effective and unwavering advocate of both those interests and American values. I’m sorry the Senator couldn’t be here in person tonight. However, I will adhere to his commonsense principle of public speaking: to remember that “the mind can absorb no more than the seat can endure.”
While global institutions and America’s foreign policy were always prominent concerns of Senator Helms, at times it may have been a struggle to persuade the American people that these institutions and our relationship with them should be a prominent concern. After September 11, Americans will never doubt that America’s ability to lead and project its power at a global level and with global institutions is essential to our security at home. Today, I would like to talk about the complex area that Senator Helms helped shape over his 30 years in the United States Senate: American foreign policy -- especially from my vantage point as Under Secretary for Global Affairs -- and ways in which we engage international organizations like the United Nations in achieving our foreign policy goals. The primary objective of our foreign policy -- of any country’s foreign policy -- is to promote the national interest. This means, first and foremost, defending America, our allies and our friends from foreign threats. It also means promoting conditions abroad that minimize those threats and create a climate in which Americans and all people can live in a world that is peaceful, free, and prosperous.
In the wake of September 11, no speech on American foreign policy or foreign relations can begin without discussing the implications of that tragic day. Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network did not just launch a despicable attack on the American people. At a more fundamental level, they assaulted freedom and modernity throughout the world, challenging the right of both western countries and the Islamic world to live in peace and prosperity. As Secretary of State Colin Powell aptly stated, “[this attack] wasn’t an assault on America. It was an assault on civilization; it was an assault on democracy; it was an assault on the right of innocent people to live their lives.”
As we have fought the War on Terror, this Administration has brought an even sharper focus to transnational issues. This Administration understands that many of these issues are central to the War on Terror and precursors to larger problems, and that an approach favoring early prevention is preferable over a later and costly one.
Our approach has been one of striking the proper balance between the immediate necessities of the war and the longer-term approach of addressing global issues like narcotics trafficking, environmental issues, humanitarian assistance, and law enforcement issues, to name a few.
When Congress established the position of Under Secretary for Global Affairs in the early 1990s, it acknowledged the rapid growth in the number and importance of transnational issues -- issues that transcend multiple borders and impact entire regions or the whole world -- and the effects of that growth on our foreign policy. The importance and impact of these global issues continues to increase. In fact, just before President Bush took the oath of office, the National Intelligence Council released a report titled “Global Trends 2015” that predicts an even greater role for many transnational or global issues in shaping the 21st century.
The National Intelligence Council report cited population changes, the environment, science and technology, globalization, and governance, among others, as key issues that will profoundly affect the world in which we live. Many of these issues used to be looked at as individual problems that were not necessarily related to one another, much less to our foreign policy and national security. But we increasingly find that they can be critical to us and that managing them requires active engagement with other nations through a variety of means.
For example, the report projected that populations will continue to grow, mainly in rapidly expanding urban centers. Uncontrolled growth will likely lead to increased poverty and disillusionment among the young. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists. Poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders. Thus, addressing these looming issues is a matter of security and stability.
Dealing with these issues on a daily basis, I know that we must be prepared to explore many different approaches to be successful. Sometimes that means working through the United Nations or other regional or international organizations. At other times, it means finding alternative cooperative approaches. But at all times, our guiding principle is to use the tools that are most effective and that are consistent with our American principles and Constitution.
Senator Helms summed up this approach when he became the first American senator to address the UN Security Council in early 2000. He said “Most Americans do not regard the United Nations as an end in and of itself -- they see it as just one part of America’s diplomatic arsenal. To the extent that the UN is effective, the American people will support it. To the extent that it becomes ineffective -- or worse, a burden -- the American people will cast it aside.”
I do not believe that Senator Helms’ comments intended to cast aside the United Nations or international cooperation, but to say that international institutions that expect the support of America and other countries must become more efficient and effective. Though America is the leader of the free world, it does not, and cannot, act alone. Virtually everything we do in the realm of foreign policy and national defense is collaborative in nature. Intelligence gathering, fighting international drug dealers and drug traffickers, enforcing non-proliferation agreements, and protecting the global environment, to name just a few, all require collaboration and cooperation from our allies. To the extent the UN can facilitate this international cooperation, it provides an invaluable contribution to the cause of freedom.
We remain committed to making the United Nations work. Senator Helms co-sponsored the Helms-Biden Act, which began the process of paying American “arrears” -- funds for the UN that had been withheld beginning in the 1980s. This was done in exchange for meaningful reforms that have transformed the UN’s operations and improved its profile.
The UN can be an important element of U.S. policy, but America has many effective alternatives at its disposal. Thus, in addition to the UN, we often work through a number of formal and informal multilateral arrangements as well as bilateral contacts with individual governments.
Four important global issues illustrate how we have applied this Administration’s approach to solving global problems through American leadership. Though I could talk about countless examples, four prominent ones where a proactive approach is producing results are HIV/AIDS, climate change, trafficking in persons, and democracy and human rights.
Despite the miracles of modern medicine, more people die each year of infectious diseases than are killed in wars. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is a critical global problem requiring urgent attention. It is not just a health issue -- it is an important foreign policy and security challenge. Absent action on the part of the U.S. and the world community, AIDS will decimate populations in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean, leaving in its wake the risk of failed or collapsed states where lawlessness and anarchy reign -- conditions ripe for violence, smuggling, and terrorist activity.
On May 11, 2001, President Bush made the first pledge to what would become the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The U.S. Government was a leader in the creation of the Global Fund. The Fund embodies a new way of doing business, bringing together diverse partners, including the public and private sectors, donors and recipients, and non-governmental organizations and affected communities, to mobilize resources for combating these diseases quickly and effectively. The United States leads the world in donations to the Fund with $623 million in contributions to date and has pledged a total of $1.97 billion from the inception of the Fund through 2008.
However, given the enormity of the challenge, and the prospect that HIV/AIDS will cause serious problems and potentially destabilize the worst affected countries, the President announced even more direct action in his 2002 State of the Union Address. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, as it is called, brings unprecedented resources to bear against the disease. Utilizing $15 billion over 5 years, the President’s commitment is the largest in history by a single nation for an international health initiative.
The President’s Emergency Plan dramatically ramps up prevention, treatment, and care services through bilateral programs in 15 focus countries most affected by HIV/AIDS. Together, these countries represent at least 50% of HIV infections worldwide. Overall, the plan will provide treatment to 2 million HIV-infected people, prevent 7 million new HIV infections, and provide care to 10 million people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS, including orphans and vulnerable children.
This humanitarian aid represents America’s commitment to compassion and our desire to help address the epidemics that tear at the fabric of societies. Our national interests are served by the fulfillment of our moral obligations.
Tackling the issue of HIV/AIDS means doing our part to save lives and help maintain stability in the nations that are most affected by the disease. Failure to take action would mean an unimaginable number of deaths, and would create the prospect of collapsed or failed states that could cause serious problems for the regions in which they are located, and for the world. Our work with the UN, the Global Fund, and many countries bilaterally underscores our strong commitment to combating this global pandemic.
Environmental issues are another area where the U.S. is engaged in a global approach. We cannot fix global environmental problems by acting alone, but we will not go along with international agreements that will negatively impact our economy simply because they are international agreements. They must also sufficiently and effectively address the problem. We can and should adopt a leadership role, designed to bring our friends and allies to support sound environmental strategies that consider all of our long-term interests as a whole. Accordingly, the Bush Administration has approached the problem of climate change by working through the United Nations, other multilateral arrangements, and bilateral programs.
The Administration remains committed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and shares its ultimate objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. We have been active participants in the annual Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention; in fact, I attended the most recent meeting in Milan at the end of last year. I believe that the Framework Convention creates a useful forum for discussing the issues of climate change, and sharing a wide range of approaches for addressing it. The December 2003 meeting in Milan provided the United States and other countries the opportunity to exchange our different perspectives.
However, all 194 parties to the Framework Convention, which includes developed and developing countries, do not see the challenge of climate change in the same way. Developing countries will soon be the largest emitters of greenhouse gas, yet they are not included under the current Kyoto Protocol framework. We need to support mechanisms that address emissions equitably for countries at all stages of economic development. This is why the U.S. has embraced flexible and cost-effective strategies. To succeed in a sustainable way, we need to engage countries in ways that reflect their individual objectives and our common interests. We are acting now to revolutionize how the world produces and consumes energy in ways that can enhance people’s quality of life, improve energy security, reduce air and water pollution and meet climate change challenges. In this way, we will move forward rather than sideways.
For example, we are partnering with various countries to move toward a hydrogen economy, to deploy the technology needed to capture and store carbon dioxide before it enters the atmosphere, to make fusion energy a reality, and to create the next generation of safe nuclear power plants. We are also collaborating with countries from around the world so as to develop a better understanding of the science of climate change. The United States spends $1.7 billion every year on climate science and related research, more than the rest of the world combined.
These multilateral initiatives are undertaken by countries that bring real solutions to the table. They recognize that if key countries come together, cooperative efforts can achieve much more than individual actions. No less important, these initiatives are not limited to developed countries; we are also working closely with many developing countries, particularly those in which the adoption of new approaches can make the greatest difference in future emissions. Fostering this sense of partnership and taking into account these nations’ aspirations to build a prosperous future for their citizens is critical to a sustainable long-term approach to addressing climate change. The United States also works on climate through other international forums including the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, known as APEC, The International Energy Agency, and the G8. And on top of all of this, we understand that in working bilaterally, it is critical to make use of the unique experiences and expertise of countries from different parts of the world. As a result, America has forged 13 different bilateral relationships on climate and energy with countries and regional organizations, including the European Union. Together with the U.S., these nations account for over 70% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. The partnerships have resulted in joint projects on climate change science; clean and advanced energy technologies; and carbon capture, storage, and sequestration. Overall, our global climate change strategy is based upon a judicious mix of national, bilateral, and multilateral efforts, with a realistic assessment of the potential impacts on our national interests.
The crime of trafficking in persons is deplorable. It is a modern-day form of slavery, and it must end. While for too long these victims faced abuses without public awareness, now that the pervasiveness of this crime has come to light, we are acting decisively to end it. Congress voiced its concern about this issue by passing the bipartisan Trafficking Victims Protection Act. At the State Department, we now have an Office to Combat Trafficking in Persons, and the Secretary of State chairs a cabinet-level group to address trafficking issues. Each year, a comprehensive report is issued rating various nations’ ability and willingness to confront this challenge. The data gathered provides an informed basis for making important decisions about allocation of U.S. aid and other forms of support to various countries. The report also provides an invaluable mechanism to pressure countries to improve their response.
In FY 2003, the State Department provided funding to a variety of organizations for 25 noteworthy anti-trafficking programs around the globe. About half of these were directly affiliated with the UN, such as the International Labor Organization, UNICEF, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The other half involved non-UN organizations like the International Organization for Migration and the Asia Fund, an international non-governmental organization.
The UN has played a constructive role in fighting trafficking through a number of important international conventions, including the Protocol on Trafficking in Persons, the UN’s Transnational Crime Convention, and the International Labor Organization’s Convention concerning the elimination of the worst forms of child labor. More than 100 governments have signed these documents. While fewer have ratified them, the conventions add momentum to our anti-trafficking efforts and draw greater attention to those nations that are not yet on board.
Since these victims are often bought and sold across countries and continents, the response must be coordinated and multilateral. This is one area where the United States must project its power and use its leverage to address a moral issue that is contrary to the fundamental tenet of our nation -- that all people are created equal and free.
There is one final global issue I would like to discuss. After tonight’s event, I leave for Geneva to attend the annual session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Respect for human rights -- a key measure of a nation’s governance -- is one of the most important transnational issues because of its powerful effects on families and futures everywhere, and we realize that the promotion of international human rights has a direct effect on our domestic national security.
We know that terrorism at its core is about contempt for free societies. It is rooted in political oppression and sometimes religious fanaticism. Repressive regimes feed the discontent and alienation that terrorist organizations prey upon when recruiting for their immoral acts. The violation of human rights by repressive regimes provides fertile ground for popular discontent. In turn, this discontent is cynically exploited by terrorist organizations and their supporters. By contrast, a stable government that responds to the legitimate desires of its people and respects their rights, shares power, respects diversity, and seeks to unleash the creative potential of all elements of society is a powerful antidote to extremism.
The Declaration of Independence captured these ideals of equality more than 200 years ago, and we are increasingly working through international organizations to promote them around the world. The UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrine rights that are “the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.” They call for the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.”
The UN Commission on Human Rights is intended to be a place for nations to speak out in favor of these universal principles and condemn those who repeatedly and egregiously violate them. Unfortunately, in the past, the Commission has failed to do this in a sufficiently forceful manner. Worse, the forum has at times been populated by non-democratic states that routinely violate their citizens’ rights and whose participation undermines and contradicts the very purpose of the organization.
But rather than abandoning the Commission and a potentially valuable channel through which to promote our ideals, we are working hard to improve its performance -- most notably by joining other free nations in advocating the creation of a democracy caucus. We believe a caucus of other free nations with representative governments could make a real difference in shaping the voice of the Commission and in the UN more broadly. The Caucus provides an opportunity for those nations who share principles of tolerance, free expression, and free elections to speak as a unified moral voice for more free and open societies around the world.
We are also pressing the issue of human rights and democracy through other multilateral instruments. Our flagship effort in this regard is the Community of Democracies, a global network in which new and old democracies gather to strengthen representative government, to share experiences, to help one another, and to coordinate policies in areas of common interest. Well over 100 free nations have come together -- first in Warsaw in 2000 and then again in Seoul in 2002 -- to reaffirm their commitment to consolidating their own democratic institutions and working with other countries to help them along the path of democratization. In Seoul, a six-point Plan of Action was enacted. It calls for action within global regions, working together to respond to threats to democracy, educating people about democracies, promoting stronger democracies through good governance, building stronger civil societies through volunteerism, and coordinating democracy assistance. The next gathering of the Community of Democracies will take place in 2005 in Chile.
The goal of the Community is to achieve practical results that directly benefit democracies and to refocus other international organizations on the ideals of liberty and self-determined government, which are frequently espoused but less frequently attained.
Our significant and long-term challenge is to ensure that the global environment is safe and protected, that freedom is maximized, and that the opportunity for success is available to all.
One of the conclusions of the National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends 2015 Report was that “regions, countries, and groups feeling left behind will face deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation. They will foster political, ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism, along with the violence that often accompanies it.”
In other words, the way we address these issues now will inherently shape America’s security and the global environment in the coming decades. Global trends related to governance, the environment, population, and other issues transcend borders and call out for strong American engagement and leadership. At this time in history, America must lead, both to preserve our freedoms, and to guarantee the hope and opportunity of freedom for the rest of the world.
After all, our foremost goal even in the War on Terror is not just fighting against terrorism -- it is fighting for civilization and democracy. In working with other nations -- through the United Nations and other international organizations -- in a pragmatic, proactive, and cooperative way, we will secure our national interest and do our part to promote freedom, health, and prosperity in America and the world -- Senator Helms’ lifelong goal. Released on March 16, 2004 |
 | |||
|
