Ambassador White's speech to the Norwegian Atlantic Committee on U.S. foreign policy and upcoming mid-term elections

Norwegian Atlantic Committee, September 13, 2010

I want to thank the Norwegian Atlantic Committee and Kate Bundt for giving me the honor and privilege of leading this Seminar on Foreign Policy under the Obama Administration, along with a brief update on U.S. politics as we look ahead to the mid-term election in the U.S.  I have seen the list of distinguished speakers that have appeared here and I hope to be able to live up to the standards of excellence you have established.  I expect that we will have plenty of time at the end of my remarks for your questions.

I feel very privileged to be the U.S. Ambassador to Norway and to have the confidence of President Obama.  Norway and the United States have a long-standing and very close relationship, which began when the first emigrants left Stavanger for the U.S. in 1825.  Recently a Norwegian government official told me that Norway is actually a country of over 9 million people, half of whom live in the United States. The U.S.-Norway relationship is based on shared values and principles, such as respect for human rights, democracy and equality, as well as a deep and enduring trust based on our roles in the NATO alliance and the trans-Atlantic relationship.  Our strong bilateral relationship has deepened under the leadership of President Obama.

I may be somewhat prejudiced, but I believe that President Obama will go down in history as a transformative president. In one of his first speeches on foreign policy given to the U.N., he outlined four basic tenets of his foreign policy. First, he wants the U.S. to engage in a renewed multi-lateral approach to foreign policy, by engaging allies to share in the solutions to problems, by working cooperatively with the U.N., NATO and other multi-national organizations and by not fearing to engage in negotiations and conversations with enemies, while still retaining the right to exercise, in conjunction with our allies, the military and economic power of the U.S., when necessary and appropriate.  Second, he wants to eliminate the threat of nuclear proliferation and work towards the reduction and ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons.  Third, he recognizes the science behind global climate change and the threat it poses to our future and indeed the future of the planet.  He has pledged to work to reduce the adverse effects on our environment caused by human activity.  Fourth, he will work for economic stability throughout the world and in particular for the economic development of the underdeveloped world.  President Obama recognizes the need to improve the economic well being of the millions of people around the world who live in poverty.

Secretary Clinton just reiterated these goals in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations when she stated it was the policy of the U.S. to rid the world of nuclear weapons, turn back climate change, end poverty, quell the epidemic of HIV/AIDS, tackle hunger and disease.  She recognized these were goals, not of a single presidency, but of a lifetime.  These are indeed very lofty goals, not easily achievable, but, this president does not aim low.  I would hope you would agree that they are legitimate goals that we should all be striving for.

As you can tell from my initial comments, there are many matters that we could discuss, but this morning I would like to focus on three of President Obama's priorities that relate closely to Norway's own goals:

First, I want to outline President Obama’s efforts toward achieving a nuclear free world; Second, I want to highlight U.S. and Norway’s Arctic cooperation and the importance of the Arctic to the United States. Third, I will give a quick update on current Mid-East Peace negotiations.  These issues are highly relevant to Norway and the United States, and represent some of the key issues in our bilateral and multilateral relationships.  After addressing these foreign policy challenges, I will give you my personal views on the upcoming mid-term elections in the U.S. and what it may mean for U.S. politics.  

President Obama has made it clear that his goal is a world without nuclear weapons.  He clearly laid out his commitment in Prague last year to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.  The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, released by the Department of Defense this past April, outlines the steps that need to be taken over the next five to ten years to achieve President Obama’s ambitious nuclear agenda.  And since his speech President Obama has taken steps in four areas: reducing nuclear arsenals, promoting non-proliferation, making nuclear energy safe, and combating nuclear terrorism.  

One of President Obama’s first achievements was concluding a New START Treaty with Russia that would reduce the limits on strategic offensive warheads by approximately 30% and the limits on strategic delivery vehicles by over 50% compared with previous treaties. 

The Treaty is a continuation of the international arms control and nonproliferation framework that the United States has worked hard to foster and strengthen for the last 50 years.   It also represents a significant step forward in building a stable, cooperative relationship with Russia.  President Obama transmitted the New START Treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification on May 13.  The President would like to obtain ratification before year-end, but this may not be possible.

President Obama's work on nuclear non-proliferation resulted in the adoption of a formal document at the conclusion of the 2010 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Treaty in May in New York.  This achievement and the constructive debate that preceded it demonstrated the NPT parties’ commitment to the Treaty and their broad agreement on steps to strengthen the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. The positive and constructive tone of the Conference and the deliberations themselves helped to further the agenda set forth by President Obama in Prague. 

The success of the Review Conference (RevCon) was a vindication of the broad thrust of U.S. efforts to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons while pursuing the peace and security of a world without them.  The United States’ new approach to nonproliferation energized the RevCon and the effort to reach a consensus final document for the first time since 2000.  The Obama Administration chose clear steps, including transparency on the size of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and the U.S. pledge of $50 million to the Peaceful Uses Initiative at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  President Obama will use the momentum generated at the NPT RevCon in other fora where concrete action can be taken, such as the Conference on Disarmament, the UN First Committee, the IAEA Board of Governors, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.  

In addition, President Obama held the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C. this past spring.  Not since 1945 has a U.S. President hosted a gathering of so many Heads of State and Government.  The Summit highlighted the global threat posed by nuclear terrorism and the need to work together to secure nuclear material and prevent illicit nuclear trafficking and nuclear terrorism.  Participants reached a consensus about the nature of the threat and agreed to a collective effort to secure nuclear material by the end of 2013. 

We know that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups seek the capability to build a nuclear weapon.  At the summit, leaders pledged to take full responsibility for the security of nuclear materials under their control, to continue to evaluate the threat and improve the security as changing conditions may require, and to exchange best practices and practical solutions for doing so.   Also at the Summit, the President spoke about the importance of extending the G8 Global Partnership beyond 2012 and called on nations to join the U.S. in committing additional funds to combat the global WMD threat.  The G8 partnership is another forum where the U.S. and Norway work together to address managing nuclear material.  Norwegian Prime Minister Stoltenberg participated at the Summit, given Norway’s active role on nuclear safety issues, in particular in the Arctic.  Just last month State Department Threat Reduction Coordinator Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins visited Oslo to discuss our close partnership. 

Turning to the Arctic, it is clear that the Arctic and U.S. Arctic policy are attracting greater attention throughout the U.S. Government, including from Secretary Clinton.  At the Joint Session of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in 2009 she said: “The changes underway in the Arctic will have long-term impacts on our economic future, our energy future, and indeed, again, the future of our planet.” 

Prior to my coming to Post as Ambassador, both President Obama and Secretary Clinton advised me to pay attention to the Arctic.  Indeed, Secretary Clinton has very positive memories of her visit as a senator to Svalbard with Senator McCain.

The current U.S. Arctic policy was formally established in 2009, when shortly before leaving office, the Bush Administration published National Security Presidential Directive 66, which the Obama Administration fully supports.  The directive states:  “The United States is an Arctic nation, with varied and compelling interests in that region,” and it commits the Administration to seek the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate to accede to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea."  We already follow its provisions.  I am working along with many military and political leaders in the U.S. to get senate ratification of this convention that was negotiated by President Regan. The directive also notes that the U.S. has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and will safeguard those interests, and that the Arctic is primarily a maritime domain. 

Yet given the climate changes underway in the Arctic, which strongly suggest a swift increase in human activity, it is only natural that the U.S. would  develop a more active and influential national presence to protect its Arctic interests.  Neither the United States nor any of the other Arctic countries want a military build-up in the Arctic.  We already have clear channels of communication for the Arctic, and clear rules by which we can operate.  As we identify “soft security” needs in the region, such as search and rescue, transportation safety, environmental clean-up, etc., it may be necessary and prudent to utilize military assets, such as helicopters, ships and personnel.  But we do not see a geopolitical scramble for the Arctic that cannot be solved within existing frameworks.  We see the Arctic as an area where the desire for productive collaboration prevails among many stakeholders.  Norway and Russia have already demonstrated their willingness to cooperate in the Arctic, with the signing of the new border delimitation agreement scheduled to take two days from now in Murmansk.  This is a very positive development and we look forward to the signing of the agreement on September 15.

The United States views the Arctic Council as the primary multilateral forum for circum-Arctic issues.  A particular benefit of dealing with issues within the Arctic Council is the fact that six Permanent Participants organizations representing the indigenous peoples of the Arctic sit side by side with the eight Arctic States.  The Arctic Council has the adaptability it needs to take on new issues within its broad mandate. 

The Arctic Search and Rescue (SAR) task force of the Arctic Council, co-chaired by U.S. and Russia, held a successful meeting in Norway this past May.  There is strong consensus that enhancing mechanisms for cooperation on Search and Rescue must be addressed as human activity in the Arctic increases.  The task force is making progress on preparing an instrument that can be signed by the eight Arctic States at the 2011 Arctic Council Ministerial in Copenhagen.  This is the first time the Arctic Council is being used as a venue for negotiating an international instrument—an example of how the Arctic States are seriously addressing emerging needs of the Arctic through existing institutions. 

The U.S. and Norway are co-chairing the Short-Lived Climate Forcers Task Force of the Arctic Council to examine mitigation options for these agents.  Scientists have recently identified black carbon (soot), methane, and tropospheric ozone (a component of smog) as responsible for much of the warming taking place in the Arctic.  Unlike CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for a long time, action to reduce emissions of these climate forcers can have very rapid positive effects.  Therefore the Arctic Council is looking to this task force to identify options for action.  At the Copenhagen climate negotiations last December the United States announced a commitment of $5million in State Department funds for early action on black carbon reduction strategies.  We have been encouraged by indications that other Arctic countries are considering similar actions, and I understand that Norway is considering pledging $1 million to addressing this issue.

The U.S. is addressing Arctic Fisheries.  Projections call for continued melting of Arctic sea ice, and recognizing the fragile nature of Arctic ecosystems, we need to proceed cautiously.  To ensure we do so, in 2008 the U.S. Congress passed and the President signed a joint resolution declaring the United States should initiate international discussions with other Arctic nations to negotiate an agreement or agreements for managing migratory, trans-boundary, and straddling fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean.  Any such agreements should conform to the requirements of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement.  In August 2009 the U.S. Secretary of Commerce approved a fishery management plan for the U.S. Arctic that prohibits commercial fishing in the Arctic waters of the region until more information is available to support sustainable fisheries management.  We recognize that not all Arctic States are in a position to take actions along these lines, and we certainly do not expect a halt to existing fisheries in the Barents Sea.  Nevertheless, we have been encouraged to see that there is general agreement among the Arctic Ocean Coastal States that additional scientific cooperation is necessary to understand how changing climate conditions might change the dynamics of fish stocks throughout the Arctic. 

We all agree that the Arctic is becoming increasingly important in the strategic planning of many countries and private industries.  We all look to the Arctic as a region that will play a bigger part in our lives than it has in the past.  But the United States agrees with Norway that we already have a solid foundation in place for peaceful, constructive international cooperation.  

The final foreign policy point I would like to discuss is an update on President Obama’s push for Mid-East Peace.  One of President Obama's biggest frustrations had been the lack of progress in the Middle East.  Let us all hope that his unrelenting attention to the issue will bring positive results.  On September 2 the parties concluded the first round of trilateral talks. The meeting began with a plenary session involving the full U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian delegations, followed by a smaller meeting involving Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Abbas, Secretary Clinton, and Special Envoy Mitchell.  Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas then went into a separate meeting for a direct discussion.

In the trilateral meeting, there was a long and productive discussion on a range of issues. President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed their intent to approach these negotiations in good faith and with a seriousness of purpose.

Both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas condemned all forms of violence that target innocent civilians and pledged to work together to maintain security. They reiterated their common goal of two states for two peoples and a solution to the conflict that resolves all issues, ends all claims, and establishes a viable state of Palestine alongside a secure state of Israel.

President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed that these negotiations can be completed within one year and that the aim of the negotiations is to resolve all core issues.  The parties agreed that a logical next step would be to begin working on achieving a framework agreement for permanent status. The framework agreement will establish the fundamental compromises necessary to enable them to flesh out and complete a comprehensive treaty that will end the conflict and establish a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

They agreed to meet again starting tomorrow, September 14 in Sharm El Shiek, Egypt and then in Jerusalem.  

There are those who will use violence to try to derail these talks. There are going to be difficult days and many obstacles along the way. But as President Obama told the two leaders, we expect to continue until our job is complete and successful.

The overall U.S. goal remains a comprehensive peace in the Middle East that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security.  We recognize that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue to Israelis and Palestinians, to Jews, to Muslims, and to Christians everywhere. We believe it is possible to reach an outcome that both realizes the aspirations of all parties for Jerusalem and safeguards its status for the future.

For our part, the United States has encouraged both Israel and the Palestinians to come to the table for direct talks.  President Obama has suffered in the polls in the U.S. for his tough stance with Israel on certain issues and his popularity in the Muslim world has faded because that community feels that he has not been tough enough on Israel and delivered results.  Perhaps by pushing both sides, he can lead the parties to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides. Negotiations cannot succeed without the support of the surrounding states. There will need to be confidence-building measures to reassure neighbors that all parties are serious and that this isn’t just more talk and more process without action.  One thing I can assure you is that President Obama and George Mitchell are not people who give up.  They are calm, cool, rational negotiators who know there are difficult times ahead, but who also know that peace in the Middle East is vital to the interests of the U.S. and the world.

Thank you again for the opportunity to share my views on U.S. foreign policy priorities. I am pleased to take your questions.