Speeches/Op-Ed 2008
Remarks at ENA
June 18, 2008
Monsieur le Directeur,
Mesdames et Messieurs,
Chers Enarques,
Bonjour, and thank you for the opportunity to meet with you to exchange views on a “engaging” subject important to us all: "U.S. foreign policy leadership." I'm going to begin by reviewing some useful categorizations for analyzing U.S. foreign policy and then go on to sketch the content of policy in some specific issue areas in order to illustrate what I believe is the continuity we canexpect in U.S. foreign policy leadership.
I call my subject “engaging” because I think there are few topics of broader interest than the one I will address this morning. Frankly, few can be indifferent in our interconnected world, to know how the United States defines its interests and objectives on the international scene.
Indeed, Americans are no less preoccupied than Europeans with trying to analyze U.S. foreign policy leadership. In fact, Washington is full of think-tanks and pundits who do little else.
One way to view American leadership is to consider the "realist" and "idealist" strains in American foreign policy, a distinction that Henry Kissinger, himself a "realist," popularized in his writings. Dr. Kissinger visited Paris recently, and he astutely identified shortcomings in both schools -- that realists can stagnate unless pushed forward by idealist impulses, and that idealists can overreach unless constrained by realist prudence. The definition of political “realism” is nearly self-evident.
A second pairing of concepts often used in analyzing U.S. foreign policy leadership is that of an “isolationist” and an “internationalist” America. Very briefly, an "isolationist" foreign policy focuses on minimizing "entangling alliances" of every sort, and is characterized by a reluctance to intervene abroad and by economic protectionism. An “internationalist” foreign policy focuses on establishing a vast range of mutually-supportive multilateral institutions and bilateral agreements to guarantee a stable international system -- economically and politically, and implies a willingness to intervene diplomatically and, when necessary, militarily, in support of that system.
A third pair of concepts has emerged in the past few years for analyzing American leadership in the world -- and generated the usual unending controversy -- among American foreign policy academics and think tankers. In specialist circles in the U.S. today a considerable number of books and articles are focusing on what are usually referred to as the "globalizing" and "imperial" models for thinking about U.S. leadership in the world.
I find this last categorization interesting, though not particularly useful. As a practitioner of diplomacy I am focused on the effectiveness of U.S. policy leadership on specific issues, and "globalizing" and "imperial" are of little help in figuring out what the right thing to do next is on one or another of the many, serious challenges facing the international community.
As interesting and useful as these categorizations may be, it is also important to keep in mind that U.S. foreign policy is more than a zero-sum struggle between idealists and realists, or between isolationists and internationalists, or between imperialists and globalizers.
We are also a practical people. The United States seeks practical solutions to outstanding issues. We may not always approach issues in the same way as our friends and allies, but we strive to achieve results through action and practical measures. American leadership reflects a mixture of all of these elements, but at its core reflects deep-seated values that do not change. And this leads to my second theme. While you will see change in America in coming months, you will also see fundamental continuity as we address the challenges ahead.
As we prepare for a new administration in Washington next January, many things will change -- but I submit to you that the essential nature of American leadership on key issues will not. We will see continuity on a broad scale. We will see continuity in American Foreign Policy leadership.
And when I say the United States will "lead," I do not mean that it will impose, but rather than it will propose, suggesting goals and courses of action for us -- together -- to pursue, in our shared interest. American leadership will take place in a globalized, multilateral world. And on many issues, we will of course welcome leadership undertaken by other countries, notably France. And now let me pass in review some specific examples continuity that we can expect in America's foreign policy leadership.
In concert with our partners and allies, you can expect the U.S. to lead in combating international terrorism with like-minded partners around the world to identify terrorists and bring them to justice, to deny their funding; and to cast a spotlight on the discredited ideologies of hate and intolerance characteristic of fundamentalist extremists.
With our allies and partners, you can expect the U.S. to lead in working to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in particular by regimes bent on international blackmail or on threatening their neighbors with nuclear destruction.
You can expect the U.S. to lead in supporting the expansion of democracy and good governance, whether in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Lebanon, or Zimbabwe.
You can expect the U.S. will lead in Iraq, doing our utmost to meet our commitment to the Iraqi people to support them in establishing a stable, secure, democratic country, with territorial integrity, a growing economy, and capable of providing for long-term security. Helping the Iraqi government achieve these objectives is challenging and dangerous, given the number of armed groups aiming to stop such progress. But the Iraqi people deserve help, and we must support them.
You can expect the U.S. to lead in working to bring security and peace to both Israelis and Palestinians.
You can expect the U.S. will lead in NATO, the military alliance that enabled our trans-Atlantic partnership to prosper and at the same time provide for its own security, one of the great achievements of the post-war period.
We will continue to favor expanding NATO's membership and renewing its purpose to better meet tomorrow's challenges. NATO continues to serve as the basis for trans-Atlantic security as well as fostering stability in other parts of the world such as in Afghanistan.
As President Bush said at the recent Bucharest NATO summit, we welcome France’s renewed interest in NATO, and also support President Sarkozy's desire to strengthen European defense capabilities. Both NATO and the EU can and should work together on common objectives, without wasteful duplication and redundancy.
As we begin to enter the French Presidency of the European Union, let me address a little more fully one priority issue France has identified for its presidency.
You can expect the U.S. will to lead in the ever more urgent effort to live in better harmony with the Earth’s environment. Since 2001, the United States leveraged $40 billion in advancing climate science and energy technologies research.
Landmark actions undertaken by the Bush Administration will prevent billions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere.
Last September, President Bush and Secretary Rice convened in Washington the first Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change. The process this meeting initiated brings together the 17 largest economies responsible for more than 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
This is an example of the pragmatic foreign policy. If the large economies are not part of the solution, all of our efforts, no matter how sincere, will not be enough to affect a sufficient global impact toward climate change. The Major Economies Meeting has already generated significant momentum for the UN talks aimed at achieving a new global agreement on climate at Copenhagen in 2009. Let there be no doubt, at every level in the U.S. – federal, state, municipal, in the private sector and in our NGO and university communities – we are taking real actions to address climate change.
I'd like to end this selective review of what we can expect from American leadership on specific issues by touching on two geo-economic challenges. These are often overlooked in discussions of international leadership, but the fact is that managing economic challenges is every bit as critical to our future as managing geo-political challenges -- or the overarching challenge of maintaining a life-sustaining environment.
You can expect the U.S. will to lead both in working to advance trade liberalization through the WTO Doha Round negotiations and in helping to devise and apply equitable rules for the world trade. I don't have to tell those of you who have seen first-hand in the EU how difficult it is to reach agreement on a rule-making process and then on the rules it makes, that we are facing a monumental challenge in the 145-member WTO.
I might observe however, that one result of the current turmoil in commodities and financial markets may be to call attention to the critical importance of the stability and security of a rules-based multilateral trading system.
You can expect the U.S. will lead in the effort to improve corporate governance. We will continue to work for transparency and accountability -- a single set of accounting and reporting standards so investors can meaningfully compare the value of stocks, and firm rules for holding corporate criminals accountable, in order to protect honest multinationals from unfair competition.
In sum, you can safely expect continuity in American leadership in the world, no matter who wins the next election. All politics aside, the United States will continue to face tomorrow's challenges, and to do so actively, with our friends and partners as we seek the best solutions that we face in common.
We believe the world expects leadership from us, we expect no less of ourselves, and we are committed to welcoming the responsibilities that the reality of global leadership entrusts to us.
I started these remarks noting that I had an "engaging" topic. Let me leave you with the view that American leadership will remain "engaged" with our friends and allies as we confront a world of challenges together.
Thank you very much for your gracious attention, and I look forward to hearing your views on U.S. global leadership today.