A New Commitment to Shared Democratic Values

I think we here can agree that such efforts are needed. These are not easy times in transatlantic relations. But to be frank, there has never ever been an easy time in transatlantic relations.

We can recall the tempestuous 1980s, for example, when NATO was trying to deploy Pershing 2 and cruise missiles in Europe. There was widespread discontent in Europe then. There were huge anti-American demonstrations, too. We Americans remember that our president at that time--President Ronald Reagan--was also being called a cowboy and dangerous to world peace.

And yet Reagan’s presidency ushered in a new era of peace, and the end of the Cold War. He and his strong allies in Europe understood the essential relationship of strength and peace. And I submit to you that President Bush understands this relationship as well.

I have come to believe that tension among allies and friends is inevitable. There will be ups and downs. On fundamental principles, Europeans and Americans agree more than we disagree; but there always will be political differences that affect our decisions about security. All the more reason, then, for us to work harder at increasing mutual understanding.

President Bush recently repeated his determination to do so, to strengthen relations with our European friends and allies, particularly in the war on terror. His meetings last week with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and with NATO Secretary General Japp de Hoop Scheffer affirmed his commitment.

The reason relations with Europe are so important, and here I will quote him, is because "we share a common enemy, and we have common duties: to protect our peoples, to confront disease and hunger and poverty in troubled regions." The President said he would continue reaching out to our EU and NATO partners to promote development and progress, defeat the terrorists, and encourage freedom and democracy as alternatives to tyranny and terror.

Security, freedom, democracy--these are not solely American values, of course. They are time-tested universal values that Americans and Europeans support. They are also the principal values on which partnerships like NATO and the European Union rest.

These values are also important to millions of people who are not "Western" at all--people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and East Timor, for example. There should be no question, however, that much of the impetus, the drive, for advancing freedom and democracy and security finds its vitality in the transatlantic community.

I would like to make some observations today about how we continue to promote these shared values through the transatlantic relationship and multilateral institutions like the United Nations, and what to expect in the future.

Advancing Democracy

For President Bush and the American people, democracy, freedom, and security are inseparable. Each cannot be assured without the others. "Security," the President told the UN General Assembly in September, "is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind."

President Bush recognizes the path to democracy, freedom, and security may not be smooth. But he strongly believes that path is always worth taking. And he has great faith in the ability of all people--not only the elite--to achieve them.

This faith in people has been wonderfully affirmed in the recent past. It was affirmed in Afghanistan last month, when millions of men and women braved Taliban threats and waited in long lines to cast their vote for a president.

This faith in people is being affirmed in Iraq, where most people still want the elections to be held in January, regardless of risk. (And let me acknowledge here the immense commitments of our European and other coalition partners to helping the Iraqi people become free, democratic, and prosperous.) But it is affirmed here too, in your ever-expanding European neighborhood, as people are pressing forward to become more democratic and free.

It is understandable that, in this process, emerging democracies will look to the UN for help. The UN was founded on democratic principles. Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself has said that, "the founders of the United Nations … knew that no foundation of peace would be sturdier than democratic government."

And yet, the UN has not been altogether successful in peacefully spreading democracy and freedom, let alone assuring security.

I believe the UN can--and indeed must--be more effective in spreading democracy and freedom around the world. But the onus, I think, rests not only on the UN. It also rests on the UN’s democratic member states. We democracies have to take democracy promotion more seriously.

Why? Because we share more than a form of government accountable to the people. We share a vision and an experience of people free, prosperous, and secure. We share strong commitments to human rights, the rule of law, and development. We are reminded of these common values by many of our allies in Central Europe, who have a not-so-distant memory of what it means to live under dictatorship.

We know what works, and what doesn’t. We know that being "free from" tyranny is good. But being "free from" is not a compass for the future. We must be "free for" something--free for fulfilling our potential, and free for helping others do the same. Here, I agree with a point made at this conference: that the war on terror must be met with a positive agenda, not merely a defensive one.

Islamic radicals hope to convert the Muslim world by denigrating our values as immoral, shallow, and hypocritical. In other words, they are trying to offer an alternative world vision that they think is superior to ours. As wrong as we may think they are, we underestimate them at our peril if we do not realize that behind their terrorist deeds is an ideology intended to convert people to a cause.

That is why we Americans and Europeans must re-dedicate ourselves to a deeper understanding of our own political culture. We need a renaissance of the principles of democracy, freedom and human rights--understanding both their philosophical and religious roots.

If you go back to the beginning of the United Nations in the late 1940s, you discover a very interesting thing. Democracy, freedom, and human rights are the principles upon which the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights were based.

Democratic member states today would do well to remember this. They would do well to champion these key principles at the UN.

Too often, they have not. But this is changing. This past spring, we along with key partners in the Community of Democracies helped initiate a democracy caucus at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. We successfully collaborated on a resolution calling on the UN to consolidate its democracy-promotion activities. The U.S. has already given $200,000 to the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to become a focal point for this work.

Democracies are working in similar fashion at the UN General Assembly in New York to ensure its work more clearly reflects democratic values, the rule of law, and economic freedom. The democracy caucus has met formally and regularly to build support for democracy-promoting activities and resolutions.

We think established and fledgling democracies alike have an interest in promoting democracy. But newer democracies may lack the resources and expertise to build the institutions that a functioning democracy needs. So we are talking with UN officials and other delegations, with Congress and NGOs, about establishing a "Democracy Fund" at the UN--something President Bush proposed to the General Assembly in September.

Again, our natural allies in this are countries in the Community of Democracies. Other democracies know the importance of promoting democracy, and they are--they must be--willing to turn their rhetoric and experience into tangible action and support.

There is great interest in the Democracy Fund. Such a voluntary fund could fill in gaps in existing UN rule of law programs. It could give grants to NGOs and democracies in transition. Its resources could be used to help institutionalize the rule of law or to set up independent courts, a free press, political parties, and trade unions. Countries already are indicating to us that they might add to our seed money.

Democracy promotion is also a goal of the G-8’s new Forum for the Future, which will soon meet in Morocco. G-8 nations want to work with countries in the Middle East and North Africa to help them strengthen democracy, improve education, create jobs, and empower women. Italy in fact will co-chair its Democracy Assistance Dialogue.

Advancing Freedom and Human Rights

A second core value we transatlantic allies share is freedom. Coming to Europe for this conference, I am reminded how much of its history is one of countries losing and gaining freedom. Your focus on protecting freedom and advancing freedom to your neighbors is wholly understandable!

NATO’s newest members like the Baltic republics have much to offer people of newly free nations like Iraq and Afghanistan. As Latvia’s president put it, they "know the meaning and the value of liberty. They know it is worth every effort to support it, to maintain it, to stand for it, and to fight for it."

Most Americans today do not know from first-hand experience what it is like to live unfree. But we know it is something we would not like. That’s why we strongly support our President’s forward strategy for freedom. It is our moral compass. It invigorates our efforts to end oppression and violence.

Take Sudan. For 3 years, we were determined to get the government of Sudan to bring all sides to the table to end the violent conflict. We welcomed the North/South dialogue and the ceasefire. We continue to press Khartoum hard for closure. We are giving military transport support to the African Union (AU) to help get troops into Sudan, to monitor the ceasefire, and to ensure humanitarian assistance gets to Darfur.

But so much more is needed, and urgently. That’s why we took Sudan’s case to the Security Council. It’s why we are working with Britain, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, the EU, and others to help the AU accelerate deployment of the mission. It’s why we allocated millions of dollars for logistical support. And it is why we asked the Security Council to meet in Nairobi--where yesterday it witnessed the signing of a pledge to reach a peace agreement by year’s end.

We hope the spotlight from this meeting will convince Khartoum that it must meet its obligations, secure the North/South ceasefire, and stop atrocities in Darfur.

I regret that the U.S., the EU, and the African Union did not work this well together on Sudan at the Commission on Human Rights last spring. Perhaps the outcry from our failure there to secure a stronger resolution against Sudan, and then Sudan’s re-selection by its African Group colleagues for an unusual third term on the Commission, was the "tipping point" that convinced the Security Council to act.

Responding strongly in the face of human rights tragedies is one way Americans and Europeans help people secure real freedom. We also work on the issues of trafficking in persons; sex tourism, child soldiers, and honor killings; restrictions on the press; and religious intolerance. Working together, for example, we helped bring balance to some UN and human rights resolutions by adding anti-Semitism language. If we hadn’t, political favors and special interests would have once again trumped principle.

We have also been working closely at UNESCO to protect freedom of expression and freedom of the press. This year, we hope to craft a convention that promotes and sustains cultural diversity, but does not restrict the free flow of ideas.

Political freedoms are vital, but so too is economic freedom. Americans, like Europeans, want to end hunger and poverty, which not only undermine freedom and peace, but progress as well.

The U.S., which is the world’s largest contributor of food aid and economic assistance, and the largest donor to the World Food Program, wants to do even more to accelerate development. So the Bush Administration has forged a new pathway to prosperity based on proven economic principles--our Millennium Challenge Account.

Like all nations gathered in Monterrey, Mexico, in 2002, the U.S. agreed that primary responsibility for development rests with each country. It is up to developing countries to create environments that will foster growth and attract opportunity. They must adopt policies that will reduce corruption, advance the rule of law, and help mobilize private and public resources, for any development aid to work.

Taking such steps is helping some of the poorest countries qualify for additional U.S. assistance through the Millennium Challenge Account. We offer this assistance to countries that can show they have taken steps to govern justly, invest in their people, and advance economic freedom. Countries that abuse or oppress their people need not apply.

Developing countries are already taking notice, and making changes. This summer, for example, Nigeria, Peru, and Georgia entered into G-8 compacts at Sea Island, Georgia, promising to promote transparency and combat corruption.

That is important progress. It shows that the U.S. and the EU should continue promoting Monterrey principles and policies in every international development forum, including APEC and the WTO, and for the EU at its High Level Event on its Millennium Commitments. They should also help infuse Monterrey principles into all of the UN’s development work.

Advancing Security

Americans and Europeans also agree that democracy, freedom, security, development, and human rights are most threatened by terrorism, proliferation, and failed states. That is why these objectives also figure prominently in our National Security Strategy. And it is why we partner in myriad ways to advance peace and security around the world.

Peace in the Middle East region is a priority, and it includes helping Iraq transition into a peaceful and democratic society. We look forward to Iraq elections in January; this will be an important step to securing peace. We are pleased that Secretary-General Annan has agreed to expand the UN presence there under Coalition-led security. We hope the UN can speed up efforts to get security details into Iraq to protect its workers.

As President Bush and Prime Minister Blair said last Friday, the Coalition will "finish the job" in Iraq. The Coalition will continue support Iraq until it can handle its own security needs, and until an elected government is in place.

Already, NATO allies such as Italy are training Iraq’s security forces in Iraq, in Europe, and in Jordan. They have not only agreed to boost that assistance, but to establish a new training center in Iraq for Iraq’s security forces. And just this month, NATO conducted its first training course for Iraq’s security personnel at the Joint Warfare Center in Norway.

President Bush has welcomed the EU’s latest financial commitments to assist Iraq in its transition to democracy as well. The EU offered to provide support for the upcoming elections, as well as for a "middle ring" in the UN Protection Force, and for an expert team to assist on police matters, rule of law, and civilian administration.

In Afghanistan, NATO is again playing a leadership role to enable the democracy that has just taken root to flourish. The recent elections there were a true achievement of U.S.-European cooperation. Now, NATO has agreed to lead and expand the International Security Assistance Force through 2007. All of this is evidence of NATO’s successful transformation into a security force that can respond to emerging needs anywhere in the world.

We are now working to help Afghanistan prepare for parliamentary elections next spring. We will continue helping with reconstruction and resettling refugees, and working with Pakistan to defeat the al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants on its frontier.

We are working with our European friends and allies in other ways to help advance peace and security in the Middle East. For example, with our G-8 partners at Sea Island, Georgia, we have embarked upon a Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative. This effort draws upon the message of progress already articulated by, among others, the Arab League, which recently cited the importance of reform in its Tunis Declaration.

We understand that reform imposed from the outside has no chance of conferring lasting benefits. Each country in the region is unique, and at different stages of political, social and cultural development. That’s why we believe a vibrant dialogue with the regional governments and civil society is needed to discern how we can best support homegrown reform efforts.

We also remain fully committed to the Middle East roadmap for peace, to the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security. Recent changes, as President Bush observed, make this "an important moment for the Palestinian people and we are ready to fully support them as they make a transition to a new era in their history."

Another serious problem we are working on with our European allies and with the UN is nuclear proliferation. We agree with the EU-3 on the fundamental steps Iran must take to show it is cooperating fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

We also applaud the Security Council for adopting a resolution this year to require member states to criminalize the transfer of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery to non-state actors. Significantly, the resolution calls on states to also "take cooperative action to prevent" proliferation, consistent with national and international law. One example of such cooperative action the President spearheaded is the Proliferation Security Initiative, which is working to interdict transit of illicit and dangerous materials on the seas.

The nexus of proliferating WMD--particularly nuclear weapons--and terrorism remains the greatest threat to international security. Terrorists have killed innocent people in every region of the world. Fighting terrorism requires determination and commitment, because the real antidote to terrorism will not be military power. It is freedom.

President Bush made this clear in his address at Whitehall Palace last November. "We cannot rely exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security," he said; "…In our conflict with terror and tyranny, we have an unmatched advantage, a power that cannot be resisted, and that is the appeal of freedom to all mankind."

It is clear that if the UN is to make a difference, it must be pressed to promote the cause of security by advancing human rights and freedom. Here, I believe, is the most significant challenge to the United Nations--this relationship between freedom and democracy on the one hand, and security on the other.

All too often, some members of the UN take freedom for granted. They become confused about where the real threats to freedom lie. They accept double standards about who deserves freedom and who does not. And some of them even question whether freedom is necessary at all for human development.

This is a profound mistake. We are at a critical time in the world’s history. Not only for the sake of the UN, but also of the world, all of us must do a better job thinking more clearly about the tasks before us. Frankly, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is too perilous a time to be engaging in intellectual and moral confusion.

A New Commitment to Values

From all these observations, I would like to draw some conclusions:

First, I don’t believe that the transatlantic relationship is in terminal crisis. For over 50 years, the U.S. and Europe have worked most closely in NATO with one overriding goal: to advance security and expand the community of freedom. Many European countries have joined the United States in the war on terror and in the multinational force in Iraq.

Democracies are not mirror images of each other, but we have the same life force. It’s true that we will have differences of opinion from time to time. But we know we will only succeed if we confront today’s major security challenges together. That’s what makes NATO’s successful transformation to respond to new threats like terrorism so significant.

President Bush put it this way as he welcomed NATO’s new members in March: "our Alliance faces a new enemy which has brought death to innocent people from New York to Madrid. Terrorists hate everything this Alliance stands for. They despise our freedom, they fear our unity, they seek to divide us. They will fail…. Together, Europe and America can advance freedom, and give hope and support to those who seek to lift the yoke of isolation and fear and oppression."

That is what we have done for 50 years. Shared values have built strong alliances. Yes, there are those who say NATO’s days are past. I do not see it that way. It would be very difficult to replace the experiences and efficiencies of NATO gleaned over 50 years.

But, there are some things that could threaten NATO’s success in the future. One would be a movement to envision Europe as an alternative or counterweight to America. We should not view ourselves as part of a multipolar world, in which friends play off one another, or seek advantage by making common cause with non-democratic nations.

Another threat to NATO would be a loss of confidence in our common values--a cynicism that breeds contempt for our past, and loss of hope in our future. And yet another would be an inability to muster the political will to defend ourselves. A concern here is the growing gap in military capabilities between the U.S. and its allies. The $400 billion we spent on defense this year is over twice as much as that of the 25 other allies combined.

Europe also needs to address what Ambassador Nick Burns, our Permanent Representative to NATO, calls the "usability gap." Only 3 percent of Europe’s 2.4 million troops are taking part in NATO’s priority missions in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Yet security in Europe and elsewhere will require force readiness.

As our good friend from Italy, Franco Frattini, noted on a visit to NATO this year, "Confronting the new security challenges will require a broad spectrum of policy responses…an integrated set of political, economic, and military instruments." For NATO to remain a formidable security force, our European partners need to invest more in defense, and more in readiness.

A second conclusion I would draw for us is this: Contrary to popular opinion (at least in much of Europe), the Bush administration has taken great pains to work its forward strategy of freedom and democracy through multilateral institutions. It has not been unilateral.

Let me mention just a few examples. There is the multinational force in Iraq, which operates under a UN Security Council mandate (Resolution 1511 authorized it, and Resolution 1546 expanded on it). There are the six-party talks to help make the Korean Peninsula non-nuclear and peaceful. And there is the Quartet working on a roadmap for Middle East peace.

There was the President’s decision to rejoin UNESCO, surprising people on both sides of the Atlantic. There is our leadership on the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS and other diseases ravaging families and economies. And there are numerous new UN peacekeeping operations, which the U.S. approved in the past two years--for Liberia, Ivory Coast, Haiti, and Burundi (not to mention two expansions of the mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo).

A third important conclusion we can draw is that the UN will never be effective if it is seen merely as a counterweight to the United States. Such an effort will only divide the international community further. And it will weaken our common efforts. If that division causes the UN to refrain from acting, then it could drive the U.S. and others to look for more effective ways to solve the world’s problems.

Finally, we should not think the UN has a monopoly on "legitimacy" or the use of force. Those who wish it were so are avoiding the evidence, and misreading the UN’s own Charter. The UN is a political entity whose members protect their interests. Part of the reason we’ve had difficulty agreeing on certain resolutions is because some members of the Security Council have economic interests in the subject countries. But that is typical of life at the UN. If shared values and shared principles do not guide policy decisions, you can be certain political interests will.

Legitimacy also can be undermined by the actions of the United Nations itself. Such was the case when Cuba and Sudan were put on the UN Commission on Human Rights. It is also the case whenever the General Assembly adopts resolutions against Israel that blatantly ignore any mention of Palestinian suicide bombings.

Legitimate actions do not emanate from a bureaucracy of unelected officials who disdain transparency and accountability. Nor do they necessarily come from an entity that gives equal voice to representative democracies, totalitarian regimes, and human rights abusers alike.

Legitimate UN actions are those that derive from decisions based on democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. Such actions aim at just ends. When actions are based on common values, responses to crises are consistent. And countries come to expect them.

It is often pointed out that the United Nations was founded on the principle of democracy, and that is so. In the first article of the first chapter of the Charter, it talks about the self-determination of peoples. The Charter also makes clear members are to uphold fundamental freedoms and protect human rights. It even calls for the equal rights of men and women. Thus, the one nation-one vote formula assumes, at its very foundation, that the UN is an alliance of nation states that share democratic values.

The UN was never designed to give equal power to democratic countries and countries that oppress their people. The intent of the founders was never to give total moral equivalence to nations that uphold the rule of law and those that don’t. If that were the case, they would not have established procedures for kicking someone out of the UN. But they did just that--in Article 6 of Chapter 2. It reads: "A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

I believe there is a democracy deficit in the UN today. Until recently, there were caucuses and groupings to promote every cause under the sun, but no caucus to promote democracy. Until this year, the UN paid little heed to advancing democracy.

The UN is in need of more "real" democracies. I agree with Secretary-General Kofi Annan who said, "When the United Nations can truly call itself a community of democracies, the Charter’s noble ideals of protecting human rights and promoting 'social progress in larger freedoms' will have been brought much closer."

Placing the emphasis of its work on promoting democratic governance, democratic values, and democratic institutions would be "real" UN reform. Baseline standards could be created for membership on the Commission on Human Rights, for example. The Economic and Social Council could mandate, for example, that states currently under Security Council sanctions, or that condone genocide or slavery, are ineligible for membership on that body.

While there are some things a global institution like the UN can and should work on, we must agree that it cannot solve all the world’s problems. The UN needs a variety of international organizations flexibly designed to address specific problems. And it needs alliances like NATO to accomplish its security goals, as we saw in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

That is why we in the United States and Europe need to think more carefully about this idea of international legitimacy. Many in Europe appear to think that it derives solely from the actions of the United Nations, or mainly from the UN Security Council.

But we should remember that the Security Council is not the sole or even main source of international law--even in cases involving international peace and security. We still live in a Westphalian international order in which nation states come together to negotiate treaties. It is the irreducible right of nations and their peoples to freely consent to these treaties that constitutes the legal legitimacy, not only of such treaties, but of the UN itself.

Apart from the question of legality is the question of morality. What constitutes moral legitimacy in international affairs?

The answer to this question is long and involved, but suffice it to say that surely the answer is not only what the UN Security Council or General Assembly says it is. We should remember that the General Assembly has some black marks on its record (recall, for example, the Zionism as Racism resolution adopted in 1975 and later repealed). And as for the Security Council, it has responded to humanitarian disasters and crises--such as in Sudan or indeed in Iraq--only as quickly or as effectively as its least reluctant members have allowed.

We should never equate international consensus with moral legitimacy in international affairs. If that were true, then at any time in history we would have to concede that the best possible of all moral worlds would be what the international community agreed to. But we know that could not be true in the past when nations sanctioned the slave trade. It could not be true when nations looked the other way as Hitler rearmed and threatened his neighbors. It should not have been true as the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe for over half a century. Nor should it be true when dictators like Saddam Hussein oppress their people, or when regimes support actions that many believe amount to genocide.

As the UN’s High Level Panel on reform is about to release its report, and as it is debated over the coming year, I hope that nations will remember these points. And I hope they will remember as well that any reform of the United Nations must begin with asking the question: How can we make the UN more effective and relevant in solving the critical problems facing the world?

Right now the Security Council is involved in a debate over how to proceed to counter the humanitarian disaster in Darfur. It has been very difficult indeed to get some members of the Council to take this disaster seriously.

While I’m on the topic of UN reform, I would like to add a word about the Oil-for-Food Program. We are heavily engaged in understanding what went wrong with this program. It is clearly a growing scandal that is damaging the UN’s reputation. There are some conclusions we can already draw from what we know.

First, we should be very careful in creating UN-run sanctions programs that would give so much leeway to the host nation (e.g., the regime of Saddam Hussein). For anyone who knows the history of this program, we know why the compromises were made. But we should also learn that such compromises came with a huge price.

Another key problem is that management of the program could not be adequately scrutinized by member states. We need greater transparency in how the UN operates. We also need better mechanisms for accountability, particularly in large-scale programs that offer greater opportunity for abuse. And finally, we need member states to comply with their obligation to enforce Security Council resolutions, especially in the case of sanctions.

I also hope that, as we debate the future of the Security Council, we will ask ourselves how any change in its structure or organization affects the fundamental question facing the High Level Panel: How to make the UN more effective in this new age of threats from international terrorism and WMD? It will not do just to trot out old arguments about increasing representation and giving others more of a voice. While these may be legitimate debates—indeed, we’ve had them for half a century--they are not the most relevant to critical questions facing our times.

The United States looks forward to the High Level Panel’s report. All of us should keep in mind that expansion is not the same thing as reform; and that reform of the Security Council is not the same thing as reform of the United Nations. We must keep our focus on the broader requirements of reform and formulate an approach that advances the effectiveness, accountability and transparency of the UN’s vital work.

Conclusion

In closing, regarding a "new chart of values," I think we should look indeed at new ways to affirm our shared values and vision. Our "mutually assured security" rests on our effort to fight terrorism and proliferation. To be successful, we have no choice but to advance democracy and freedom and human rights where they are lacking, and to jumpstart engines of economic opportunity where they are silent.

If I may borrow from our President’s speech to the General Assembly in September, the defeat of terror, the protection of human rights, the spread of prosperity, the advance of democracy and freedom--these values call Americans and Europeans to great work in the world.