Athens, February 5, 2008

U.S. Foreign Policy: 2008 and Beyond

I want to thank, obviously, the Deputy Foreign Minister for his introductory remarks, and to thank my colleagues up here, the Ambassadors, the Secretary General, my colleagues in the diplomatic corps, and all the rest of the distinguished visitors in the audience today for coming out to have a discussion on foreign policy, in particular, US foreign policy.

I agreed very much with what the Deputy Foreign Minister was saying about the status of U.S.-Greek relations.  I believe they’re very positive and reflect the friendship our two countries have had, really, for the duration of my country’s history.

I also want to start my remarks, basically, with what was mentioned by the Deputy Minister: that this is an important time in the United States—it is not going unnoticed with this election year.

No doubt many of you saw President Bush’s final State of the Union Address last week, when he talked about the economy and Iraq, education and health care and immigration, peace in the Middle East and aid to Africa, energy security and climate change.

There are major challenges represented in these issues, and opportunities for America, and for all of us. And we in the United States are debating them. 

And I say, truly "debating."   An unusually large and diverse group of American candidates has come forward, perhaps because for the first time in decades, neither our sitting President or Vice President is running for re-election.

More than a dozen candidates from each of our two major political parties began answering questions from ordinary Americans as early as last summer, when CNN and YouTube began hosting debates on television and via the Internet.

As the campaign moves into 2008, from last month's Iowa caucases and the New Hampshire primaries to today's "Super Tuesday" with contests in 24 of our 50 states, a truly historic U.S. election is taking shape.

Americans may well choose a woman, or an African-American, or a former prisoner of war, or a Mormon or an ordained Southern Baptist minister, to be the next President of the United States.

What does this election mean to Americans and for U.S. foreign policy?

For one thing, it shows us that democracy in America is alive and well.

The ancient Greeks taught, and the founding fathers of the United States knew, that democracy is not a static state but a dynamic process.

And Greece still has a claim on adapting and developing democracy.  I understand that Greece was the first country in Europe to experience a YouTube debate, last fall during your own election season.

From our very beginnings to the new-media present that YouTube so colorfully represents, democracy in Greece and in America has had, and still has, much in common.

Foreign Policy in the United States and Greece

As for U.S. foreign policy, I think it is fair to say that Americans today are acutely aware that we live in a time when things that happen elsewhere in the world can affect us very directly.

Of course, the same can -- and certainly should -- be said of Greeks and Europeans, Asians and Africans, and indeed everyone alive on the planet today.

Technological and scientific change has narrowed distance and time, so that for the very first time in the human experience global forces have linked the fate of all people in all countries.

As Americans and as Greeks, our different experiences and points of reference may lead to different views and opinions on international affairs and the changing nature of the world.  And this is natural as we both reap benefits from the positive face of globalization, and incur costs and risks from its darker, more dangerous aspects.

For Americans, there is the memory of 9/11 and concern about our involvement in Iraq, alongside new worries about the economy, the housing market and oil prices.

For Greeks, there is the legacy of the violent break-up of the former Yugoslavia, as well as uncertainty about Euro-zone inflation and the long-term impact of this summer's wildfires.

Despite our differences, I hope that as we continue our debates about how best to solve these kinds of problems, we won't lose sight of the fundamental values and important interests Americans and Greeks have in common.

I would even go so far as to say that I hope we will be pleasantly surprised by the solutions we can find, if we keep working closely together.

With this in mind, let me offer two broad topics for discussion this afternoon:

-- the changes in the way we as Americans think and talk about "national security;" and

-- how we are approaching today's globalized economy and the threat of climate change.

Changes in Our Understanding of "National Security"

We used to talk about foreign policy and national security almost exclusively in terms of state-to-state relations.

As Americans that is the way we organized ourselves, nationally and internationally, during the Cold War.  We thought in terms of a bipolar world and the certainty of "mutually assured destruction" between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, and all that that implied for Europe and for Greece.

State-to-state relationships still matter of course, including between the U.S. and Russia, and so does responsible behavior by those who control or seek to control the awesome power of nuclear energy, for good or ill, whether they live in India or in Iran.

But as Secretary of State Rice put it at Davos a couple of weeks ago: “All the recent talk about a new Cold War is hyperbolic nonsense.  Our relations [with Russia] today are fundamentally different than they were when all we shared was the desire to avoid mutual annihilation.

The fact is that the U.S. and Russia are working constructively today on many issues of mutual interest -- from counter-proliferation, to counter-terrorism, to the pursuit of peace in the Middle East.”

Counter-Terrorism

But as important as state-to-state relations are, whether your point of reference is New York or Washington on 9/11 or the Al-Qaeda attacks in Madrid and Bali -- or for that matter the successful security measures Greece put in place to avoid a terrorist strike during the 2004 Olympics – the fact is that in today's world, it is non-state actors who pose some of the most serious threats to our security and prosperity.

Defending against extremists who would use terror as a tactic against us will remain at the top of the U.S. and international agenda for the foreseeable future.

Border Security

Let me note that the United States and Greece have made important progress in adjusting to this complex new reality, using a very concrete example: the Visa Waiver Program.

As you know, Greece was the first and is so far the only country to receive an invitation to apply for the updated version of the VWP since the “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007” became U.S. law last August.

The next step in the process began last November, when a delegation of U.S. consular and immigration experts spent two weeks here, in meetings in Athens and touring a number of Greek border crossings with their counterparts.  Expert-level talks between the U.S. and Greece continue, and I am happy to say that they are going well.

Success in this effort will mean strengthening Greece's and America's borders while at the same time making it easier for law-abiding citizens to travel to the United States.

Deligitimizing Extremism and Violence

Beyond improvements in border security, of course, we must work together with the rest of the international community to delegitimize the very notion that terrorism or other forms of violence are justifiable alternatives to participation in international civil society and democratic political processes.

I think we are making some good progress in this respect, too.  A great many civic leaders, including important religious figures like the late Archbishop Christodoulos, have taken up the challenge of dialogue about disaffection from society and violent extremism, especially with youth.

Greece also has an important contribution to make to this broader effort through its diplomacy, so we were very pleased that Foreign Minister Bakoyiannis was among the delegates to the Annapolis conference on Middle East peace.  Greece's contribution includes a proposed new youth exchange program, which I think is a very promising area.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

Let me give you another example of the need to factor in both states and non-state actors when we think about foreign policy.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaeda continue to terrorize communities and innocent civilians in an effort to try to re-impose their rule.  Stability and the success of democracy in dealing with the multi-ethnic society in Afghanistan remains essential to peace in that country, the surrounding region, and to security of the Middle East and our own societies.

The unwavering commitment of the international community, acting under a UN mandate, to provide assistance and support – through NATO forces to help build security; development and humanitarian assistance to help the government address Afghanistan's real human needs; and technical support to help build the rule of law and democratic institutions -- remains essential for Afghanistan to resist those who are trying to impose their will through violence and intimidation.

And similar forces are at play in neighboring Pakistan.  Elections are scheduled to be held in Pakistan in about two weeks.  They were delayed due to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a great woman, which is now believed to have been carried out by Al-Qaeda.  Pakistan has been a declared nuclear weapons state since 1998, and we know that Al-Qaeda has an interest in acquiring nuclear material.

The stakes in Pakistan and Afghanistan to our international security are undeniably high, with far-reaching consequences.  Greece and the United States must work together in ensuring their stability and democratic development for our own, strong, security interests.

The Balkans

Shared interests in working together to ensure stability and the our common values of democracy are also found closer to home – in the Balkans.

This past weekend, voters in Serbia re-elected their current leader, who must now continue to work with the international community to resolve the status of Kosovo.  Whatever the outcome of this international effort, as an anchor of stability in the Balkans and one of Serbia's strongest allies, Greece has a crucial role to play.

Encouraging Serbia to stick to the path of integration into the broader European and Euro-Atlantic family remains critical to its success, as well as to the success of Kosovo.

I know many of you are concerned over the impending and likely declaration of independence in Kosovo. 

We have reached this point not for lack of engagement by the international community.  The United Nations, the European Union, NATO, and the contact group have all spent years of diplomatic work to try to reach agreement on the future status.

But with these years of effort and negotiations now behind us, it is our considered view, and that of many of our European colleagues, that it is time to implement the Atisaari plan for Kosovo's supervised independence -- imperfect though it may be -- with strong protection for the Serbians who live there.

We recognize that Greece has more at stake than many in the stability of this region.  I can assure you that our policy is mindful of this, and that our commitment to you as a NATO ally is firm in continuing to support an international presence in Kosovo to ensure  peace and stability.

The Global Economy and U.S. Ideals

Let me turn now from politics to economics and talk a little bit about the global economy, energy security, and climate change.

The recent fluctuations in the U.S. and global economy are, quite naturally, of concern to all of us.  But here's how Secretary Rice talked about America and the global economy at Davos:  "There is not one challenge in the world today that will get better if we approach it without confidence in the appeal and effectiveness of our ideals -- political and economic freedom, open markets and free trade, human dignity and human rights, equal opportunity and the rule of law."

You might be asking, "Has America been living up these ideals?"  While we are not perfect, I think the answer is yes.

Development and Humanitarian Assistance

We are often criticized -- or least unfavorably compared with Europe -- when it comes to official development assistance.  But since 2001, we have doubled our official development assistance to Latin America, we've quadrupled it for Africa, and we've tripled it worldwide.

To put it another way, the United States has launched the largest international development effort since the Marshall Plan.

America is leading the fight against global hunger.  Today, more than half the world's food aid comes from the United States.  And in his State of the Union address, the President asked Congress to support an innovative proposal to provide food assistance by purchasing crops directly from farmers in the developing world, so we can build up local agriculture and help break the cycle of famine.

The U.S. is also leading the world in supporting the fight against HIV/AIDS.  Our commitment of resources to fight HIV/AIDS is the largest commitment of any country to an international health initiative at any time.  And the President is now asking Congress for an additional $30 billion over the next five years.

Our efforts are not in isolation, but often in partnership with other countries.

With Greece, for example, USAID is collaborating with Hellenic Aid in the Balkans and beyond, even as U.S. and Greek firefighters and emergency management experts continue sharing their knowledge of firefighting and burned-area rehabilitation techniques on a government-to-government basis in the Peloponnese.

Americans are a generous people individually, too.  Private American giving far exceeded U.S. official assistance to Greece during last summer's wildfires, just as it did to East Asia after the 2004 tsunami and in other recent natural disasters.

In general, Americans tend to favor private giving while Europeans tend to favor official development assistance.  In 2006, for example, American private grants to developing countries came to $9.2 billion, compared to $3.8 billion for Europeans from the countries of the EU Development Assistance Committee.

When one takes a broader perspective, and takes a look at “total economic engagement” with the developing world -- and by this I mean not just official development assistance, but also private giving, remittances, trade, and investment -- America's total was 5.4% of our GDP in 2006, compared to 3.1% for Europe.

This is an important and interesting new angle that challenges the conventional wisdom that the U.S. gives less to the developing world as a percentage of our GDP than Europeans do. 

More importantly, I hope it causes people to realize that like Europe, the U.S. believes in the importance of using development and humanitarian assistance to attack some of the root causes of instability and insecurity in the world today, and believes in the importance of supporting the basic human needs and dignity of all.

Climate Change

Let's turn now to another widely-held European misperception about the United States: that the U.S. government doesn't care about climate change.

With the Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2012, our goal is to reach international agreement on a new approach by 2009, at the next meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change -- that is, by next December in Copenhagen.

Now, when we joined the international consensus at the last UN meeting in Bali, we insisted on an agreement that includes the developing world, especially China and India.  At this point, America and Europe just can't make any meaningful progress on climate change without them.

The U.S. is still the world's largest economy, and thus still the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.  But very soon, emissions from China will overtake ours -- if they haven't already -- and China's economy is still only one-sixth our size.  Even if everyone else cuts emissions to zero, it won't make much difference if this trend continues.

It is clear that if we are to break the link between global wealth and global warming, we're going to need a variety of practical, realistic strategies -- at the national, regional, and international levels.  Grand global targets, in our view, are simply not going to be enough to overcome the critical challenge of climate change.  Instead, we all need to take "measurable, reportable, and verifiable" actions, to use the language of the Bali Roadmap.

What are we doing at home in America?  We are using a combination of mandates, incentives, public-private partnerships, and new technology to address energy security and climate change.  Did you know that since 2001, the United States government has devoted $37 billion to the problem, more than any other country?

U.S. government investment, however, is dwarfed by U.S. private sector investment.  In fact, there is a huge second wave of U.S.-led investment in green technology that is larger, more sustainable, and more far-reaching than the first wave of the 1980s.  And speaking of green technology, I was interested to hear that one of the stars of the EU's "Sustainable Energy Week" activities in Brussels was a company making an iconic American product right here in Greece: Coca-Cola.

The results of America's climate change initiatives have been good -- as good or better than in Europe, recently.

The growth in U.S. emissions has slowed considerably since the 1990's.  And between 2000 and 2005, the latest period for which we have comparable UN data, the U.S. and EU-25 experienced roughly the same rate of growth in emissions -- about 1.5 or 1.6 percent.  To put this in perspective, let me note that during that same period of roughly the same rate of growth, in absolute terms, the U.S. economy grew by more than the size of Italy, and our population by more than the size of Greece.

In 2006, U.S. emissions actually declined, and we will continue to work seriously to reduce our "carbon intensity" going forward.  In fact, the mandated targets set out in the 2007 U.S. energy law will be on a par with the emissions to be cut under the Kyoto Protocol, if the Kyoto goals are themselves achieved.

Climate change is a serious threat to our environment, and our goal is to work together with all our international partners in tackling it.  The U.S. will do its share toward making real progress – and populist attacks against America often serve only to blur this focus --  in all the major economies of the world.

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me reiterate that Americans today are well aware that many of the most important problems affecting our security and prosperity simply cannot be solved without robust international engagement -- through our bilateral ties as well as in regional and global institutions such as NATO, the European Union, and the United Nations.

As you watch our 2008 U.S. President elections I would ask you once again to remember the fundamental values we share and the dynamism of democracy in tackling the problems we face.

We can and we must continue to work closely together for the common good of our citizens and the wider international community.  And keeping an open mind on both sides of the Atlantic to finding solutions to the world’s problems is essential.

I can promise you – this will be my approach.  With that, let me once again thank you for the opportunity to be here today.  Thank you for this Ambassador’s Forum, I think it’s an excellent forum. Thanks to all of you who host this.  I'll be happy to respond to your questions, as time permits.