AMBASSADOR Robert Holmes Tuttle
Speeches, Remarks & Events
13 March 2007
Ambassador Robert H. Tuttle's Address to the Ends of the Earth Club, Carlton Club, London
Almost exactly 99 years ago, The New York Times reported on the meeting of a group called The Ends of the Earth Club. The article lists Mark Twain as the group's honorary head and Rudyard Kipling as a member of its honorary council.
The paper was silent on who else was involved. But it seems logical that cities such as London and New York would both give rise to organizations dedicated to what The New York Times called:
A ". . . prime fellowship . . . to exchange felicitations."
"Exchanging felicitations" may not have meant a speech like this one, but given that the principles of membership outlined in that same article included being ". . . good fellows with no axes to grind," who come ". . . from the ends of the earth" to simply ". . . speak the language," I hope this will qualify.
I will do my best to not grind any axes and to speak your language - though happily, I have a fair bit of leeway if Mark Twain and Rudyard Kipling are the parameters.
I would like to talk about three facts that, for me, sum up the current foreign policy challenges. These areas will be priorities, not only for the United States as we come to the end of this first decade of the new millennium, but they also illustrate the new realities that apply to the "ends of the earth."
One - India and China will, over the next 15 years, provide up to half of the world's growth.
Two - while the United States remains the world's largest consumer of energy, China's total emissions of carbon dioxide are set to surpass those of the United States - by 2009.
Three - over 75 percent of the eligible voters of Iraq turned out in their most recent election in December 2005, despite the sectarian violence that threatens to undermine their ability to establish a stable civil society.
This list is also illustrative of two observations about foreign policy;
First, it is clearer than ever before that foreign policy is not solely about diplomacy and wars - if it ever truly was. Globalization means that we need to think anew about problems that do not respect borders or respond to formal meetings and international committees. The concepts of "domestic" and "foreign" are no longer reliable categories of work, policy, or even how we think about the problems of the modern world.
Every policy decision we make has the capacity to reach across borders and affect the stability, economy and environment of our neighbors.
Following closely is a second observation: the security - and survival - of our world will be directly connected to our ability to ensure that we develop the economic capacity and independence of all countries, while encouraging the values of democracy and protecting our environmental heritage.
These facts each point to an important truth of modern foreign policy:
The development of China and India highlights the urgent need to deal with international trade and regulation in a way that ensures every country has a stake in the system and a stable framework in which to operate.
Developing countries, as well as developed countries, must not be tempted to retreat behind protectionist measures.
The speed at which China will surpass the United States in terms of total carbon emissions should tell us that putting straitjackets of environmental control on developed countries, or starving developing countries of the energy they need to become economically independent, will not deal with the real problems of global warming, and could, in fact, endanger global stability.
And finally, the amazing fact that the Iraqi people turned out in such large, and increasing numbers across their three elections in 2005 indicates that there is a real desire for democratic institutions and the freedoms democracy affords.
The stark statistic, however, that 80 percent of the recent sectarian violence takes place within 30 miles of the capital, reminds us that electoral democracy is not the same as a liberal democracy with the framework it offers for minority rights, rule of law, and civil society.
Extremism and terrorism are the greatest enemies of liberal democracy. We must do everything in our power to support those who desire the institutions and protections a real democracy affords.
In a recent issue of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister made an apt comment; he said,
"This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash about civilization. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace the modern world and those who reject its existence . . . if we want to secure our way of life. It requires, across the board, an active foreign policy of engagement, not isolation."
I would like to set out what the United States is trying to do in each of these areas, by way of engagement.
It seems every magazine cover these days has a headline about globalization. And the ones that are not talking about globalization are talking about India and China. The simple fact of the increasing economic challenge from these two waking giants would be explanation enough, but I would like to place this in a wider context.
There is an urgent need to ensure that China and India, and every other country of the world, operate within a rules-based system of international trade and the need, therefore, for the Doha Round to succeed.
The Bush Administration believes Doha represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lift millions out of poverty, by providing the incentives and the infrastructure to enable the world's poorest countries to come to the global marketplace.
If there is a lesson from the rapidly developing countries to the rest of the world, based on economic indicators going back nearly 30 years, it is that the fastest-growing economies have two things in common: They were, until relatively recently, among the world's poorest countries. And they are the countries that are most heavily involved in international trade.
India and China have become significant drivers of the world economy, not through the assistance of others, but by taking advantage of an international trading system that encourages open markets and lower tariffs.
The Bush Administration believes that not only the United States, but the entire world, benefits from open and free trade.
But some people are expressing doubt as to the benefits of that approach - both at home and abroad.
Some of the new members of the U.S. Congress are concerned about job security and economic stability for their constituents. They have a right to be concerned.
Large, developed countries with aging populations and declining, or low productivity rates, are increasingly concerned about global competition and a potential loss of jobs and incomes. They also have a right to be concerned.
But rhetoric will not change reality. Attempts to retreat from the development of an open system of trade will not prevent: income inequality, a slow-down in growth, or worst of all, the tensions caused by those who become economic losers in an international system they perceive to be tipped against them.
Only a positive approach to the benefits of open markets, combined with a commitment to the education, training and re-training of our citizens, will enable us to deal with global competition in a fair and even-handed way.
The United States has been, and remains, the largest consumer of the world's natural resources.
The United States has been, and remains, the largest and strongest economy on earth. Those facts are inextricably linked.
Yet, we know that over two billion people have no access to any form of modern energy. We also know that, as those people begin to develop their economies, they will consume more energy.
Developing countries cannot protect their air and water while their people are starving. Western countries cannot, on the one hand, fight to lift people out of poverty, while on the other, not allow them to create the industries and jobs that will sustain a higher standard of living.
What we need to address are the environmental challenges that economic development inevitably brings.
Let's go back to China. The new middle class in China is fast becoming the biggest purchaser of energy-consuming products, such as air conditioners.
We cannot dismiss this as a desire for unneeded goods, when it is clear that, as they create businesses and a growing service sector, they will increasingly need efficient workplaces.
However, they tend to buy older, more inefficient models. These are, in turn, run by outdated power stations that, in turn, burn a polluting soft coal.
The problem is inefficient technology at two different levels. The solution is not to limit economic development, but to develop, and bring to market as quickly as possible, the technologies that will enable China to continue to lift its people out of poverty, while protecting the world's environment.
India and China are now at the table discussing these issues through the Asia-Pacific Partnership, which encourages investment in these much-needed technologies.
In a similar approach, the United States is working through the G8, where each country is developing an appropriate mix of policies. We are negotiating with the EU to find ways to use coal resources without damaging our climate, while creating more renewable sources of energy.
Since 2001, the Administration has spent nearly $29 billion in strategic research and development initiatives. Last year, that totaled $4 billion - more than any other country.
In 2002, the President committed the United States to reducing our greenhouse intensity - the level of emissions per unit of GDP - by up to 18 percent through 2012. And according to UN data, between 2000 and 2004, U.S. CO2 emissions have increased at a slower rate than those of the European Union.
In the President's recent State of the Union Address, he reiterated his determination to help the United States become less dependent on fossil fuels and to invest in clean sources of energy and new technology.
He has asked Congress to support his drive to reduce the use of gasoline in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years, to increase mandatory fuel standards, and to require five times the current target for renewable and alternative fuels by 2017.
Finally, the juxtaposition of the figures voting in elections with the balance of violence in Iraq tells us that sectarian violence is rife. The local authorities cannot cope on their own, and the people of Iraq need help if they are to build democracy in a country in which the rule of law is under threat and sectarian violence is doing untold damage to civil society.
Prime Minister Maliki and other leaders in Iraq are trying to establish their government in the midst of a complicated and violent struggle. Some groups do not want all Iraqis to share the benefits of their society. These extremists are the furthest cry from our shared values of liberal democracy.
Immediate withdrawal would leave the population at the mercy of those who represent only intolerance, repression and hate.
Nearly a month ago, President Bush announced that the strategic goal of the United States for Iraq would remain a unified, democratic and federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself.
Prime Minister Maliki needs the United States and all allies of democracy to come to his aid if he is going to be able to create the democracy his people seek.
International engagement is also a key part of the way forward, and involves not only all of Iraq's neighbors, but also other states and international organizations with a stake in Iraq's future.
The struggle of the Iraqi people is not isolated. While democracies have quadrupled since 1974 and doubled to over 120 in the last ten years alone, we should not think that the world is automatically a safer place.
Again, to quote the Prime Minister, "In the era of globalization, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress will determine our future. . . . .our values are our guide."
I have pointed to three facts that I believe sum up the challenges we will have to deal with, not only from the United States and the United Kingdom, but from here to ". . . the ends of the earth." They are not meant to be exhaustive but illustrative of the issues presented by globalization and the impact of modernity in our political and global culture.
Two years ago, when President Bush phoned me and asked me to take on the post of Ambassador here in the United Kingdom, I was honored, of course. But he also gave me a mission. And that mission was to not only represent my country to the Government of the United Kingdom, but to listen very closely to the views of the British people.
Over the course of the past year and a half, my wife and I have made over 35 trips across the United Kingdom, and have learned a great deal about the issues that worry people here.
I have also learned that many of the concerns of the British people, are not so very different from those of the American people.
The facts I pointed out at the beginning all suggest that the world is getting smaller. Struggles in far-away parts of the globe touch our everyday lives, and sometimes we might take for granted the institutions born of our historic values that others would risk their lives to have.
We all worry about the impact those facts will have on our lives and on our families. We want to remain true to our ideals, while recognizing the dangers of our global world.
Foreign policy everywhere - politics everywhere - must maintain a balance between the idealism that spurs us on to find progressive solutions to the conditions that leave millions homeless, penniless, in jeopardy, and the pragmatism that requires we not close our eyes to the perils and the pitfalls that would render our plans unworkable or even dangerous.
It is not an easy balance, but it has never been easy for anyone who has honestly undertaken the challenge of dealing with the kinds of issues we find at the foundations of our societies.
But today, it is where those very foundations are most at risk that we must direct our work. There is much to be done, shoring up the underpinnings of liberal democracy, building an open and fair system of trade, and protecting our environmental heritage.
It is an international agenda as much as a national one. It is one that calls for not only big ideas, but leadership. Inevitably, it is work that falls to those who see the danger most clearly.
And it is about modernity. If we want to secure our way of life, we will have to stand up for our values and develop a foreign policy of engagement.
I believe the United Kingdom sees the danger and has put its shoulder to the wheel. I know the United States is ready and willing to carry out our share of the work to be done.
London and New York are sister cities in many ways, including as jumping off places to ". . . the end of the earth." Together we can form the core of this much-needed global alliance.
We are all, as ever, on a journey that will become the story of history, only long after we have passed by.
| 
Speeches, Remarks & Events