AMBASSADOR Robert Holmes Tuttle
Speeches, Remarks & Events
29 June 2006
"America at Home, America Abroad; Public Diplomacy
and the Development of Shared Values"
Address of U.S. Ambassador Robert H. Tuttle to Chatham House
Next week, the United States will celebrate the 230th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that the people would be able to hear the very words that proclaimed the birth of their nation. So, they immediately sent the document to be printed - explaining the 24 copies that still exist today.
The days that followed July 4, 1776 were filled with public readings right across the Eastern Seaboard.
But July 4th will also be another anniversary.
Exactly 50 years after the adoption of this document, the two men most closely associated with it, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, died at their homes in Massachusetts and Virginia.
It is the anniversary of the death of these two great men that I would like to highlight this afternoon. I believe their actions and words have a great deal to tell us about the world in which we find ourselves.
 His Excellency, U.S. Ambassador Robert H. Tuttle, at Chatham House
(U.S. Embassy photo by Sarah-Jane Mayhew) |
The "truths" that the Continental Congress held to be "self-evident," ". . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . ." are again the subject of debate, and again the aspiration of many around the world.
As diplomats, I am sure that Adams and Jefferson would have been fascinated by the changes brought about by the phenomenon of globalization.
Advances in technology and communication have brought amazing changes to the business of speaking "nation unto nation." But whatever the changes in speed and method - the values that Jefferson outlined are as relevant today as they were 230 years ago. |
Globalization has had a massive impact on the economy, on other countries, on the sovereignty of the state, and on our own notions of what is "domestic" and what is "foreign" policy.
I believe we have all agreed that there is no longer an "over there," and that, in a range of areas, certainly in security, trade and the environment, we are all interconnected and interdependent - and therefore permanently in negotiation.
But what has that meant to the world of diplomacy? How have states responded to those challenges?
Since September 11th, our State Department, first under Colin Powell, and now under Condoleezza Rice, has made communicating our values -as well as our strategy - a governmental priority.
And the United States is not alone. Ben Mor of the University of Haifa argued recently that:
• The growth of democracies - (around 20 at the end of world
war two, more than 120 today);
• The end of the cold war;
• And the pace of communications,
have created the circumstances in which all countries must review their approach to public diplomacy.
And what are countries hoping to achieve through such efforts?
Jan Melissen of the Institute of International Relations in The Netherlands has identified five public diplomacy objectives:
And they are:
- Seeking support for long-term aims in foreign policy;
- Enhancing their own visibility;
- Countering negative stereo-types;
- Heading off negative perceptions before they affect day-to-day policy; and, of course,
- Finding potential avenues for economic development.
Chatham House Director Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas and His Excellency Ambassador Robert Tuttle
(U.S. Embassy photo by Sarah-Jane Mayhew) |
 |
Increasingly, countries speak of a "collaborative" model of diplomacy, in which diplomats no longer operate just on a government-to-government basis, but must operate on a government-to-people basis.
Basically, that means we have to get out more and talk to people where they live and work. In fact, I have found this a critical - and enjoyable - part of my job here in the United Kingdom.
To concentrate our efforts on this crucial area of public diplomacy, both the United States and the United Kingdom have recently launched new initiatives.
In the United States, we have called it "transformational diplomacy." Here in the UK, it has been called "active diplomacy."
But whatever they are called, these initiatives have the same goals.
Both are about recognizing the global nature of the world, and reorganizing resources to respond to those changes more effectively.
For the United States, transformational diplomacy focuses on three specific targets:
First, we believe there is an urgent need to reform and transform our international institutions to deal with a borderless world. If institutions are to have impact and credibility, they must be seen to deliver on their mission - and be seen to achieve results.
Second, we recognize the fact that our national interests are no longer internal to our own borders. Events in other places have a direct impact on our own security and prosperity.
As a result, we cannot work alone, but we must work with our partners around the world on issues that are in the global interest.
Finally, we must deal not only with the results of tyranny but the roots of tyranny. And the best way to do that is through development and aid to the poorest parts of the world, and a concerted effort to improve governance and the accountability of governments around the world.
NATO is a good example of an international institution that has already been undergoing the kind of transformation we are looking for as our first priority. Designed to be a "belt of security" across Europe, and a collective defense during the Cold War - NATO changed as a direct response to its members' needs.
The world needed an organization that could face down the threat of Communism. To the surprise of many - NATO succeeded without a single military operation.
But today it is no longer possible to withdraw to our separate walled gardens. And that is why NATO has gone from being an alliance of 15 countries to one of 26. It now has 8 military operations and acts in pavrtnership with 30 countries in Eurasia, and another 22 in the broader Middle East.
No doubt, as these partnerships develop, NATO will continue to adapt its capabilities to deal with our constantly changing security situation.
And this audience knows better than I, just how far European institutions have come over the past 60 years.
Leaving the various irritations to one side - who could possibly have predicted only one lifetime ago - that the EU would become the economic and political union it is today. And that it would include in its number, countries that had, for generations, been hidden by Communism?
Old diplomacy defined Europe as a "balance of power." But that is no longer relevant, as the President and the Secretary of State have made clear. They do not see an "old Europe" or a "new Europe." America wants a "strong Europe."
The world needs a Europe strong enough to partner with others as a union, or as individual nations, as the situation requires.
The choice is not between Europe and the United States as weights and counterweights. It is a choice between democracy and tyranny.
And nowhere is the approach of a transformed Europe clearer than in its behavior towards the emerging states of Central and Eastern Europe.
The EU has used its institutions and expertise to encourage, entice, challenge, and perhaps even provided an incentive or two.
But whatever the method, the EU has peacefully united the continent of Europe and created a testament to peace and international community.
We must now work to find the same will to transform other crucial international institutions, if we are to be as successful in re-shaping the international community.
Which brings me to our second target for diplomatic action: the purpose-driven groupings that are key to this new "collaborative model" of international politics.
Temporary formations of states and organizations - each bringing its own expertise - are set to become the pattern of partnership in the future, as problems become more complex and conditions more difficult.
For example, in the Balkans - the UK, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, the EU and Russia - the contact group - has launched an effort to resolve the last major open question: Kosovo's final status, Thus closing a tragic chapter, and allowing its people to begin anew.
At the European Union's new frontier, Europeans, as well as the United States, are acting to support and consolidate democracy in countries like Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan.
The EU-Three of France, Germany and Britain have done important work representing the whole of the international community on the issue of Iran's nuclear program. And America stands ready to join that effort if Iran accepts the offer made by EU high representative for the common foreign and security policy Javier Solana earlier this month.
We need to continue to develop this collaborative technique to allow every country to play to its own strength.
Our third target of activity may well be the most important, because nowhere is this model of diplomacy more useful than in projects to promote development and encourage democracy.
It is now clearer than ever, that it is through economic development, and fighting famine and aids and other diseases, that we support stability and build a firmer basis for democratic institutions and improved governance.
By working with others in pursuit of justice in Burma, in the Sudan, and in Zimbabwe, we give hope to suffering people. And we improve their chances for stability, progress and accountability.
As the largest contributor to debt relief for developing countries, and by extending every possible opportunity for trade, we encourage self-reliance and independence. We also give individuals hope for their own future.
Yet for all our talk about globalization - we often do not carry our own argument to its logical conclusion, because we shy away from talking about what it is that we are trying to globalize.
What are our global aspirations? What kind of world are we trying to build?
And, looking back to Philadelphia - how do we advance the values for which Adams argued so persuasively, and about which Jefferson wrote so eloquently?
I have been watching with interest the recent public debate on the idea of teaching British values and British identity in schools. The suggestions have included: fair play, tolerance, and the strength of community politics. All noble values.
But I can't help thinking that what animates our thinking, are not British values or American values, but values to which we, and you, and indeed all humankind, can aspire.
Our young people should be taught that our values are not national treasures to be hoarded - but riches than can only be enjoyed when distributed as widely as possible.
Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw argued this case in Blackburn, when he pointed out that the foreign policy of the United Kingdom was based on the values of its domestic policy.
UK "national interests" were best advanced, in his words, by ". . . building a community of nations in which people can share in common values - respect for human rights, democratic accountability, rule of law, economic freedom, opportunity for all - a helping hand for the poorest".
He called them "global values."
EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso similarly argued that the transatlantic partnership between the European Union and the United States was based on what he called the "shared idea that our strategic partnership should serve to promote democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and the market economy of the world."
American ideas and values are no different. We believe simply that everyone is equal - whatever their race or religion, color or politics. That government and the rule of law should protect us all and protect us equally.
All citizens should be allowed to make the choices they believe are right for themselves and their families. In short: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So, to me, it seems clear that we already share a set of values.
They aren't just British, European and American values; they are the values of all who seek to realize those same aspirations for their own societies.
To some, Jefferson's words may sound old-fashioned and out of date. Certainly his own actions did not always reflect the values he expressed. But perhaps in today's environment of multi-culturalism and diversity, we need to remind ourselves that we share more than we differ.
Of course, there are differences of culture, history and geography, but none of these forces, as strong as they are in the lifeblood of human communities, render these values obsolete.
Let's go back to Jefferson, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Or, as Britain's own anti-slavery campaigner, William Wilberforce, put the same idea, "Evil succeeds when good men do nothing."
Now we might say, "Evil succeeds when good states do nothing".
Governments often talk about national interests. What is our "interest" in this place - or that policy?
But, we live in a world in which states must take a longer-range view of their own national interest - because the global concerns of today, will tomorrow become our national concerns.
September 11th and the 7th of July were not unique experiences. Those attacks were not just against the United States - or the United Kingdom. They were part of a global attack - two of many attacks - right around the world -on these shared values.
For all the disagreement with our global partners over the prosecution of the war on terror, surely we can agree that terrorism is the common enemy of humanity.
Terror is the ideology of death - the furthest cry from peace.
Past generations fought against the tyranny of Fascism and the extremes of Communism. Today, the world's leading nations must decide what they will do, to confront this new threat - totalitarianism with a religious face.
Be assured, if we are silent, evil will succeed.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is fond of reminding us that those who fought world war two didn't know how it was going to turn out.
Those involved in the complicated chess game of the Cold War couldn't foresee the fall of the wall and the collapse of Communism.
Military intelligence was limited. They had little experience of the new technologies of war - and certainly no textbooks to guide them.
They only had their vision - and their values.
– That is all they had then.
– That is all we have now.
The world is a changing, and often dangerous place. The only thing we can say with certainty is that we will continue to not have all the answers.
Countries that would be leaders in their region, or in the world, are shaped by their experience and their attitude - not only towards their national interests, but towards the responsibilities they shoulder for their fellow nations.
The United States and the United Kingdom enjoy this kind of relationship - based on our common values - forged by our willingness to stand together.
Today there are others attempting to build their societies on these same values.
We cannot know the outcome of these struggles. Because history isn't history until it is seen from the future.
Let me leave you with another thought of Jefferson's, because I think it is an apt summary of where we are - caught up in the confusion of conflicts whose beginnings now feel distant, and the ends of which we cannot yet see.
Essentially, he said that the "ground of liberty is to be gained by inches." And that, "We must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time," But that we must, "eternally press forward" for what is yet to be achieved.
Sometimes it seems to me, that we are progressing by inches - if not being pushed back on occasion.
But if we agree that there are values that we all share, then we cannot retreat.
To retreat would suggest that while other cultures might be able to begin the process of change. They are somehow not strong enough to live with liberty. Not capable of coping with the choices that freedom entails - or worthy of the rights we take for granted.
That is an arrogance we can ill afford when "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are, once again, the declaration on the minds, in the hearts, and on the lips of people around the world.
| 
Speeches, Remarks & Events