The following is a summary of the remarks made by Herman Van Rompuy at the 66th UN General Assembly. His Excellency Herman Van Rompuy is the President of the European Council of the European Union, the first long-term, non head of state or government to hold this post.
Summary of Remarks made on the 22nd of September 2011:
His Excellency divided up his speech into three sections, 1. Hopes, 2. Worries, 3. Europe's Global Responsibility. My comments upon the main points of his speech are in orange.
1. Hope
There has been an increased economic uplifting of peoples, with emerging economies becoming emerged economies and the corresponding decrease in poverty.
South Sudan is an example of how peace and diplomacy can prevail.
North Africa has provided examples of the possibility for tyranny and terrorism to be defeated.
Europe is close to the Arab world, geographically and historically and hence will support the democratic and economic reforms of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt with financial aid and access to European markets.
Europe and the international community have an important responsibility to assist the new Libyan government
The decade after 9/11 has shown no great clash of civilizations, no religious hatred. The revolutions in the Arab world have also exhibited little of such sentiment. Rather the Arab peoples demand a desire for human dignity in their revolutions.
Systems must reform in order to stay strong.
One area of critique from me. Has there really been no clash of civilizations and no religious hatred? Whilst he argues that the 9/11 attacks did not spark global hatred towards Islam, an increased suspicion of Islam certainly has taken root in Europe and in America. Perhaps it is true that there have been no civilization clash, as evidenced by how the Arab Spring where people demand the same rights that those in the West do.
Herman Van Rompuy addressing the 66th UNGA
2. Worries
Oppression and violent crackdowns on protesters in Syria
Urged others to join the European condemnation of Syria
The famine in the Horn of Africa
Issues on nuclear proliferation by Iran and North Korea as well as nuclear power safety issues
The challenge of climate change
In the short term, we work towards protecting human life
In the long term, we work towards protecting humanity
Actions undertaken to combat climate change are insufficient and must be increased exponentially
I agree with His Excellency on this portion of his speech. Climate change certainly is one of the greatest challenges of our time.
Map of EU Member States
EU Flag
3. Europe's Global Responsibility
Supporting hope and fighting the causes of worry globally
Europe is the largest donor of development aid
And is one of the largest donor towards climate aid (aid to tackle and mitigate the effects of climate change)
Offers manpower aid (peacekeeping, development and aid workers, volunteers, police officers)
Europe is ambitious in climate talks
Europe seeks reforms in the international financial systems in recognition of the changing economic weight of countries
It seeks to solve conflict in the Balkans
Has an important role to play in the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)
Seeks the implementation of a two state solution based upon 1967 borders with mutually agreed territorial swaps
Supports the Palestinian Authority in its state building process
Mutual concerns are important and legitimate, Israelis must have a state and security and recognition; Palestinians must also have a state of their own
History severely judges political moves that only create shortcomings
In Europe's example of achieving peace, there must be a lasting compromise built upon mutual sacrifice and trust
Invites other industralised countries to follow Europe's aims and goals in cutting carbon emissions in a bid to tackle climate change
Europe is committed towards tackling the sovereign debt crisis as it is responsible to the global economy.
Europe will continue to do what it takes to tackle the defining challenge of this European generation
But Europe also expects other major countries to bring their own houses in order
Europe will stand shoulder to shoulder with the UN
The UN is crucial to the world
The EU's 500 million citizens reject splendid isolation in favour of global engagement
The world belongs to no one nation, it belongs to us all
Most interesting section. Outlines Europe as a global power quite different from say China or the US. Emphasis on European soft power (e.g. development support, peacekeeping, economic power). Interesting allusion to the European project that created European peace (save for the Balkans). Indeed, the MEPP can only plausibly succeed if sacrifices can be made and trust created. Both Palestinians and Israelis have legitimate and inalienable claims to the Holy Land. Emphasis on climate change efforts are made. Comments on the sovereign debt crisis and the reiteration of European resolve. Interestingly, the invitation for industrialised countries to join the European targets of carbon emissions reduction as well as the comments on other countries needing to keep their balance sheets in order seem directed at the US. Perhaps a double attack for US sidelining the EU at Copenhagen and for Secretary Geithner comments on the sovereign debt crisis. In this new era of increasing US decline, it is perhaps important to have Europe actively engaged in the world. It after all is the most peaceful and economically developed region of the globe with examples and lessons for us all to learn from.
(The following text is the full version of President Obama's speech to the 66th UN General Assembly. I have underlined portions of the speech in order to highlight certain key points)
{Many key issues are being addressed here. It's a compelling speech, but at times, there appears to be a disconnect between US foreign policy and its stated aims. Interesting to see the perspective on Bahrain and Israel. I'll have you make what you will out of this speech though. I think different people will view this differently.)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: It is a great honor for me to be here today. I would like to talk to you about a subject that is at the heart of the United Nations — the pursuit of peace in an imperfect world.
War and conflict have been with us since the beginning of civilizations. But in the first part of the 20th century, the advance of modern weaponry led to death on a staggering scale. It was this killing that compelled the founders of this body to build an institution that was focused not just on ending one war, but on averting others; a union of sovereign states that would seek to prevent conflict, while also addressing its causes.
No American did more to pursue this objective than President Franklin Roosevelt. He knew that a victory in war was not enough. As he said at one of the very first meetings on the founding of the United Nations, “We have got to make, not merely peace, but a peace that will last.”
The men and women who built this institution understood that peace is more than just the absence of war. A lasting peace — for nations and for individuals — depends on a sense of justice and opportunity, of dignity and freedom. It depends on struggle and sacrifice, on compromise, and on a sense of common humanity.
One delegate to the San Francisco Conference that led to the creation of the United Nations put it well: “Many people,” she said, “have talked as if all that has to be done to get peace was to say loudly and frequently that we loved peace and we hated war. Now we have learned that no matter how much we love peace and hate war, we cannot avoid having war brought upon us if there are convulsions in other parts of the world.”
The fact is peace is hard. But our people demand it. Over nearly seven decades, even as the United Nations helped avert a third world war, we still live in a world scarred by conflict and plagued by poverty. Even as we proclaim our love for peace and our hatred of war, there are still convulsions in our world that endanger us all.
I took office at a time of two wars for the United States. Moreover, the violent extremists who drew us into war in the first place — Osama bin Laden, and his al Qaeda organization — remained at large. Today, we've set a new direction.
At the end of this year, America’s military operation in Iraq will be over. We will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of the community of nations. That equal partnership will be strengthened by our support for Iraq — for its government and for its security forces, for its people and for their aspirations.
As we end the war in Iraq, the United States and our coalition partners have begun a transition in Afghanistan.Between now and 2014, an increasingly capable Afghan government and security forces will step forward to take responsibility for the future of their country. As they do, we are drawing down our own forces, while building an enduring partnership with the Afghan people.
So let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding. When I took office, roughly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year, that number will be cut in half, and it will continue to decline. This is critical for the sovereignty of Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s also critical to the strength of the United States as we build our nation at home.
Moreover, we are poised to end these wars from a position of strength. Ten years ago, there was an open wound and twisted steel, a broken heart in the center of this city. Today, as a new tower is rising at Ground Zero, it symbolizes New York’s renewal, even as al Qaeda is under more pressure than ever before. Its leadership has been degraded. And Osama bin Laden, a man who murdered thousands of people from dozens of countries, will never endanger the peace of the world again.
So, yes, this has been a difficult decade. But today, we stand at a crossroads of history with the chance to move decisively in the direction of peace. To do so, we must return to the wisdom of those who created this institution. The United Nations’ Founding Charter calls upon us, “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.” And Article 1 of this General Assembly’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights.” Those bedrock beliefs — in the responsibility of states, and the rights of men and women — must be our guide.
And in that effort, we have reason to hope. This year has been a time of extraordinary transformation. More nations have stepped forward to maintain international peace and security. And more individuals are claiming their universal right to live in freedom and dignity.
Think about it: One year ago, when we met here in New York, the prospect of a successful referendum in South Sudan was in doubt. But the international community overcame old divisions to support the agreement that had been negotiated to give South Sudan self-determination. And last summer, as a new flag went up in Juba, former soldiers laid down their arms, men and women wept with joy, and children finally knew the promise of looking to a future that they will shape.
One year ago, the people of Côte D’Ivoire approached a landmark election. And when the incumbent lost, and refused to respect the results, the world refused to look the other way. U.N. peacekeepers were harassed, but they did not leave their posts. The Security Council, led by the United States and Nigeria and France, came together to support the will of the people. AndCôte D’Ivoire is now governed by the man who was elected to lead.
One year ago, the hopes of the people of Tunisia were suppressed. But they chose the dignity of peaceful protest over the rule of an iron fist. A vendor lit a spark that took his own life, but he ignited a movement. In a face of a crackdown, students spelled out the word, "freedom." The balance of fear shifted from the ruler to those that he ruled. And nowthe people of Tunisia are preparing for elections that will move them one step closer to the democracy that they deserve.
One year ago, Egypt had known one President for nearly 30 years. But for 18 days, the eyes of the world were glued to Tahrir Square, where Egyptians from all walks of life — men and women, young and old, Muslim and Christian — demanded their universal rights. We saw in those protesters the moral force of non-violence that has lit the world from Delhi to Warsaw, from Selma to South Africa — and we knew that change had come to Egypt and to the Arab world.
One year ago, the people of Libya were ruled by the world’s longest-serving dictator. But faced with bullets and bombs and a dictator who threatened to hunt them down like rats, they showed relentless bravery. We will never forget the words of the Libyan who stood up in those early days of the revolution and said, “Our words are free now.” It’s a feeling you can’t explain. Day after day, in the face of bullets and bombs, the Libyan people refused to give back that freedom. And when they were threatened by the kind of mass atrocity that often went unchallenged in the last century, the United Nations lived up to its charter. The Security Council authorized all necessary measures to prevent a massacre. The Arab League called for this effort; Arab nations joined a NATO-led coalition that halted Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks.
In the months that followed, the will of the coalition proved unbreakable, and the will of the Libyan people could not be denied. Forty-two years of tyranny was ended in six months. From Tripoli to Misurata to Benghazi — today, Libya is free. Yesterday, the leaders of a new Libya took their rightful place beside us, and this week, the United States is reopening our embassy in Tripoli.
This is how the international community is supposed to work — nations standing together for the sake of peace and security, and individuals claiming their rights. Now, all of us have a responsibility to support the new Libya — the new Libyan government as they confront the challenge of turning this moment of promise into a just and lasting peace for all Libyans.
So this has been a remarkable year. The Qaddafi regime is over. Gbagbo, Ben Ali, Mubarak are no longer in power. Osama bin Laden is gone, and the idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with him. Something is happening in our world. The way things have been is not the way that they will be. The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. Dictators are on notice. Technology is putting power into the hands of the people. The youth are delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship, and rejecting the lie that some races, some peoples, some religions, some ethnicities do not desire democracy. The promise written down on paper — “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” — is closer at hand.
But let us remember: Peace is hard. Peace is hard. Progress can be reversed. Prosperity comes slowly. Societies can split apart. The measure of our success must be whether people can live in sustained freedom, dignity, and security. And the United Nations and its member states must do their part to support those basic aspirations. And we have more work to do.
In Iran, we've seen a government that refuses to recognize the rights of its own people. As we meet here today, men and women and children are being tortured, detained and murdered by the Syrian regime. Thousands have been killed, many during the holy time of Ramadan. Thousands more have poured across Syria’s borders. The Syrian people have shown dignity and courage in their pursuit of justice — protesting peacefully, standing silently in the streets, dying for the same values that this institution is supposed to stand for. And the question for us is clear: Will we stand with the Syrian people, or with their oppressors?
Already, the United States has imposed strong sanctions on Syria’s leaders. We supported a transfer of power that is responsive to the Syrian people. And many of our allies have joined in this effort. But for the sake of Syria — and the peace and security of the world — we must speak with one voice. There's no excuse for inaction. Now is the time for the United Nations Security Council to sanction the Syrian regime, and to stand with the Syrian people.
Throughout the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change. In Yemen, men, women and children gather by the thousands in towns and city squares every day with the hope that their determination and spilled blood will prevail over a corrupt system. America supports those aspirations. We must work with Yemen’s neighbors and our partners around the world to seek a path that allows for a peaceful transition of power from President Saleh, and a movement to free and fair elections as soon as possible.
In Bahrain, steps have been taken toward reform and accountability. We’re pleased with that, but more is required. America is a close friend of Bahrain, and we will continue to call on the government and the main opposition bloc — the Wifaq — to pursue a meaningful dialogue that brings peaceful change that is responsive to the people. We believe the patriotism that binds Bahrainis together must be more powerful than the sectarian forces that would tear them apart. It will be hard, but it is possible.
We believe that each nation must chart its own course to fulfill the aspirations of its people, and America does not expect to agree with every party or person who expresses themselves politically. But we will always stand up for the universal rights that were embraced by this Assembly. Those rights depend on elections that are free and fair; on governance that is transparent and accountable; respect for the rights of women and minorities; justice that is equal and fair. That is what our people deserve. Those are the elements of peace that can last.
Moreover, the United States will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy — with greater trade and investment — so that freedom is followed by opportunity. We will pursue a deeper engagement with governments, but also with civil society — students and entrepreneurs, political parties and the press. We have banned those who abuse human rights from traveling to our country. And we’ve sanctioned those who trample on human rights abroad. And we will always serve as a voice for those who've been silenced.
Now, I know, particularly this week, that for many in this hall, there's one issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for American foreign policy, and that is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine.I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year. That basis is clear. It’s well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.
Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure you, so am I. But the question isn’t the goal that we seek — the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians — not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.
Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That’s the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That’s the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state — negotiations between the parties.
We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.
But understand this as well: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.
Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.
The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland.Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.
That is the truth — each side has legitimate aspirations — and that’s part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other’s shoes; each side can see the world through the other’s eyes. That’s what we should be encouraging. That’s what we should be promoting.
This body — founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every single person — must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live lives of peace and security and dignity and opportunity. And we will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and each other’s fears. That is the project to which America is committed. There are no shortcuts. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.
Now, even as we confront these challenges of conflict and revolution, we must also recognize — we must also remind ourselves — that peace is not just the absence of war. True peace depends on creating the opportunity that makes life worth living. And to do that, we must confront the common enemies of humanity: nuclear weapons and poverty, ignorance and disease. These forces corrode the possibility of lasting peace and together we're called upon to confront them.
To lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. Over the last two years, we've begun to walk down that path. Since our Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, nearly 50 nations have taken steps to secure nuclear materials from terrorists and smugglers. Next March, a summit in Seoul will advance our efforts to lock down all of them. The New START Treaty between the United States and Russia will cut our deployed arsenals to the lowest level in half a century, and our nations are pursuing talks on how to achieve even deeper reductions. America will continue to work for a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons and the production of fissile material needed to make them.
And so we have begun to move in the right direction. And the United States is committed to meeting our obligations. But even as we meet our obligations, we’ve strengthened the treaties and institutions that help stop the spread of these weapons. And to do so, we must continue to hold accountable those nations that flout them.
The Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful. It has not met its obligations and it rejects offers that would provide it with peaceful nuclear power. North Korea has yet to take concrete steps towards abandoning its weapons and continues belligerent action against the South. There's a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet their international obligations. But if they continue down a path that is outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. That is what our commitment to peace and security demands.
To bring prosperity to our people, we must promote the growth that creates opportunity. In this effort, let us not forget that we’ve made enormous progress over the last several decades. Closed societies gave way to open markets. Innovation and entrepreneurship has transformed the way we live and the things that we do. Emerging economies from Asia to the Americas have lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty. It’s an extraordinary achievement. And yet, three years ago, we were confronted with the worst financial crisis in eight decades.And that crisis proved a fact that has become clearer with each passing year — our fates are interconnected. In a global economy, nations will rise, or fall, together.
And today, we confront the challenges that have followed on the heels of that crisis. Around the world recovery is still fragile. Markets remain volatile. Too many people are out of work. Too many others are struggling just to get by. We acted together to avert a depression in 2009. We must take urgent and coordinated action once more. Here in the United States, I've announced a plan to put Americans back to work and jumpstart our economy, at the same time as I’m committed to substantially reducing our deficits over time.
We stand with our European allies as they reshape their institutions and address their own fiscal challenges. For other countries, leaders face a different challenge as they shift their economy towards more self-reliance, boosting domestic demand while slowing inflation. So we will work with emerging economies that have rebounded strongly, so that rising standards of living create new markets that promote global growth. That’s what our commitment to prosperity demands.
To combat the poverty that punishes our children, we must act on the belief that freedom from want is a basic human right. The United States has made it a focus of our engagement abroad to help people to feed themselves. And today, as drought and conflict have brought famine to the Horn of Africa, our conscience calls on us to act. Together, we must continue to provide assistance, and support organizations that can reach those in need. And together, we must insist on unrestricted humanitarian access so that we can save the lives of thousands of men and women and children. Our common humanity is at stake. Let us show that the life of a child in Somalia is as precious as any other. That is what our commitment to our fellow human beings demand.
President Obama and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
President Obama addressing the General Assembly (note the two giant TV screens)
To stop disease that spreads across borders, we must strengthen our system of public health. We will continue the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. We will focus on the health of mothers and of children. And we must come together to prevent, and detect, and fight every kind of biological danger — whether it’s a pandemic like H1N1, or a terrorist threat, or a treatable disease.
This week, America signed an agreement with the World Health Organization to affirm our commitment to meet this challenge.And today, I urge all nations to join us in meeting the HWO’s [sic] goal of making sure all nations have core capacities to address public health emergencies in place by 2012. That is what our commitment to the health of our people demands.
To preserve our planet, we must not put off action that climate change demands. We have to tap the power of science to save those resources that are scarce. And together, we must continue our work to build on the progress made in Copenhagen and Cancun, so that all the major economies here today follow through on the commitments that were made. Together, we must work to transform the energy that powers our economies, and support others as they move down that path. That is what our commitment to the next generation demands.
And to make sure our societies reach their potential, we must allow our citizens to reach theirs. No country can afford the corruption that plagues the world like a cancer. Together, we must harness the power of open societies and open economies. That’s why we’ve partnered with countries from across the globe to launch a new partnership on open government that helps ensure accountability and helps to empower citizens. No country should deny people their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but also no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.
And no country can realize its potential if half its population cannot reach theirs. This week, the United States signed a new Declaration on Women’s Participation. Next year, we should each announce the steps we are taking to break down the economic and political barriers that stand in the way of women and girls. This is what our commitment to human progress demands.
I know there’s no straight line to that progress, no single path to success. We come from different cultures, and carry with us different histories. But let us never forget that even as we gather here as heads of different governments, we represent citizens who share the same basic aspirations — to live with dignity and freedom; to get an education and pursue opportunity; to love our families, and love and worship our God; to live in the kind of peace that makes life worth living.
It is the nature of our imperfect world that we are forced to learn these lessons over and over again. Conflict and repression will endure so long as some people refuse to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Yet that is precisely why we have built institutions like this — to bind our fates together, to help us recognize ourselves in each other — because those who came before us believed that peace is preferable to war, and freedom is preferable to suppression, and prosperity is preferable to poverty. That’s the message that comes not from capitals, but from citizens, from our people.
And when the cornerstone of this very building was put in place, President Truman came here to New York and said, “The United Nations is essentially an expression of the moral nature of man’s aspirations.” The moral nature of man’s aspirations. As we live in a world that is changing at a breathtaking pace, that’s a lesson that we must never forget.
Peace is hard, but we know that it is possible. So, together, let us be resolved to see that it is defined by our hopes and not by our fears. Together, let us make peace, but a peace, most importantly, that will last.
(The following is the full text of the remarks made by Assistant Secretary Esther Brimmer to the US Institute of Peace regarding US priorities at the 66th UN General Assembly. Part 2 will be my commentary on this speech)
Sustaining America’s Global Leadership: U.S. Priorities at the United Nations
Remarks by Esther Brimmer,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organisation Affairs of the US State Department
Address made at the U.S. Institute of Peace, Washington DC, September 7, 2011
We are here today less than one week from the opening of the 66th UN General Assembly, when the eyes of the world turn to the United Nations in New York. At this year’s General Assembly, we will work with the international community on the next steps for assistance to the transition in Libya. We will address the mounting humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa, and peace and security in Sudan and South Sudan. We will devote high-level attention to the urgent global public health challenges posed by non-communicable diseases. And on the sidelines of the UNGA, we will co-host with Brazil the first head of state-level meeting of the Open Government Partnership, bringing countries together to strengthen governance through transparency and citizen empowerment.
But the formal agenda will take place against a backdrop of global changes, historic challenges, and new opportunities too large to fit in any meeting hall.
Looking back a year ago, none of us could have imagined the seismic political transformation taking place across North Africa and the Middle East. Though incomplete, it holds great promise for a new era in which democratic impulses and human rights are embraced, not suppressed.
Today, new centers of emerging influence are identifying the bedrock principles for their foreign policies in the 21st century. From what we have seen to date, many current and future leaders shape their outlook and approach to the world in the UN’s halls and corridors, where we must highlight the expanded responsibility that comes with a greater presence on the global stage.
Here in the United States, we face our own challenges. This Administration has strengthened our national security and restored U.S. global influence by engaging multilaterally. Yet there are still some here in Washington intent on forcing a U.S. retreat from global leadership, by hindering our participation in the UN system, seemingly unaware of the profoundly altered global landscape.
It is against this backdrop that I want to discuss not only the U.S. goals for the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly, but also the Administration’s approach to the UN, and the centrality of multilateral diplomacy to U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century.
In short, U.S. engagement with the UN has never been more critical or more beneficial to our nation. We cannot turn back the clock to a time when the world was simpler and less interconnected, and multilateral engagement was less essential to core U.S. interests. And we cannot dispatch U.S. diplomats to the United Nations to pursue our 21st century foreign policy objectives hobbled by a 19th century worldview, one that ignores the role multilateral bodies play in so many of our most pressing challenges.
The importance to the United States of our engagement at the UN is hardly a new phenomenon; indeed, most Democratic and Republican Administrations have understood, regardless of party, the importance and benefits to our nation of multilateral engagement.
In advance of each year’s General Assembly, the State Department’s International Organizations bureau – which I head – drafts a memorandum for the President, framing the strategic context and highlighting the most session’s important debates. I want to share with you today a brief excerpt from a past such memo. It begins by stating that in September,
“nearly every major issue of American foreign policy will be before the [ ] General Assembly of the United Nations. This would be largely true even if we did not want it that way. It is all the more true because we have deliberately decided, on some very important matters, that the United Nations must be the central forum in which to pursue our objectives.”
This was written not last year or the year before; no, it dates to summer 1961, sent to President John Kennedy by my predecessor, Harlan Cleveland. And its principles are as true today as they were then, even though the world and the multilateral system have changed dramatically over the past half-century. To state them plainly: multilateral diplomacy is central to American foreign policy, and important issues will be decided at the United Nations whether or not the United States chooses to be actively engaged. But as the world has changed, our foreign policy – even how we engage multilaterally – has adapted as well.
Now more than ever, our economy and security is intertwined with that of the rest of the globe. We have seen the benefits that globalization can bring for our economy, as well as the threats and challenges that cross-border networks pose for our national security. So many of the threats we face are shared by the global community, and their solutions will require global cooperation.
Nuclear proliferationendangers the security of us all, regardless of nationality.
If not checked, the impact ofclimate changewill further accelerate across the globe.
Attacks onfreedom and universal human rightsanywhere stain our collective conscience.
Terrorism and transnational crimedo not respect national borders.
Pandemic diseaserequires no passport to move quickly from one country to another.
And we know all too well thatconflict and instability, even when they fall within a single country halfway around the world, can unleash these and other dangers.
We also know that to respond to these and other threats, U.S. engagement at the United Nations works.
In Libya, the United States has worked across the UN system to marshal a robust international response to the crisis. With our allies and partners, we won tough Security Council sanctions and an International Criminal Court referral of Qadhafi’s depredations. We insisted that the world would not stand by as Qadhafi’s forces attacked Libyan civilians who dared express their desire for freedom. When that warning was not heeded, we went back to the Security Council and shaped a mandate to protect civilians in Libya.
Since then, an unprecedented coalition, including the United States, our NATO allies, and Arab nations, has conducted a military operation to save civilian lives. And in the course of the past few months, Libyans have stood up to Qadhafi and established a credible transition process, and are working with the international community – including the UN – to prepare for a bright, stable, and prosperous post-Qadhafi Libya.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the UN also plays an indispensable role to contribute to political stability. UN political missions in both countries work to strengthen democracy and mediate local conflicts, allowing us to draw down our military forces on schedule.
The UN also plays a central role in global efforts to combat nuclear proliferation. Security Council sanctions on Iran have hampered that regime’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Tough sanctions against North Korea allowed cargo vessels to be inspected and illegal arms shipments seized. The work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, too, has been invaluable in sounding the alarm on illicit nuclear activities in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere, and is a reminder of the value of investment in international institutions.
On counterterrorism, UN bodies are uniquely important. Security Council sanctions against al Qaeda have, through their universal application, isolated and frozen the assets of terrorists and their supporters. And by working through a range of other UN bodies, the United States and our partners help prevent and combat terrorism by building up national capacity, sharing best practices, and promoting aviation security.
UN peacekeepers also make an important contribution to global security and the security of the United States, one that has increased as their roles have grown more difficult and complex.
UN peace operations no longer are comprised of lightly-armed or unarmed observers, sent to monitor an agreed ceasefire line between two sovereign states. Instead, over the past decade. They have addressed some of the world’s hardest and most challenging security situations – Darfur, Congo, Haiti, Cote d’Ivoire. UN peacekeeping missions protect civilians, and work to prevent and end armed conflicts. They bring stability to parts of the world that for too long, have known too little of it.
They do all this at a fraction of the cost of sending U.S. troops, and mean that we need not choose between doing it ourselves, or doing nothing. And over the years, nearly three thousand have paid the ultimate price in pursuit of a larger peace.
Today, we use our influence to ensure peacekeeping operations have the full political support of the Security Council, especially when they face challenging deployments or hostile host governments. We work to ensure that peacekeeping missions are given mandates they can achieve, and that they have the personnel and equipment needed to achieve those mandates. And we have trained more than 100,000 peacekeepers in the last six years, and supported the training by partner countries of tens of thousands more.
U.S. support for peacekeeping crosses party lines. The previous Administration oversaw the largest increase in the number of peacekeepers and missions in the history of the United Nations, with deployed peacekeepers more than doubling over an eight-year period. We continue to pay increased overall UN peacekeeping assessments compared to the year 2000, because missions created over the past decade continue their valuable work in the field. But that investment in global security reaps returns unlike almost any other tool in our diplomatic or military toolkit.
Perhaps one of the most valuable roles the UN plays is in engaging in preventive diplomacy and other efforts at staunching conflicts before they start or worsen. From the “good offices” of the Secretary-General to the dispatch of special envoys, high-level UN involvement has saved countless lives by preventing violence or halting its escalation. Though many of these “quiet diplomacy” efforts by necessity go unheralded, the human and financial cost of violent conflict make them among the smartest investments the international community can make in our shared security. As we implement the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which emphasized preventing and resolving armed conflict, we are looking at how the United States can further support the UN’s work in these areas.
Working through the UN, we also are developing new tools and updating old ones to better address the contemporary and changed nature of armed conflict.
Special Political Missions provide UN assistance to cement peace in fragile states, without deploying military peacekeepers. Peacebuilding missions coordinate international assistance to post-conflict states, avoiding duplication and sustaining international attention to root causes of violent conflict. Peacekeeping doctrine has evolved to incorporate protection of civilians as a core function of more and more UN missions. Undergirding these efforts, the UN’s Global Field Support Strategy and the New Horizon initiative are improving how UN peace operations are conducted, managed, led, and supported in the field, with logistics and support functions streamlined to reduce costs from startup through sustainment.
U.S. policy toward the UN system has evolved as well, given the myriad benefits of multilateral engagement to our national interest. I have discussed the how we work across the UN system to enhance our security, but our multilateral engagement also is an important means of advancing universal values that Americans hold dear.
Since 2009, when this Administration changed course from the previous one by running for and winning a seat on the Human Rights Council in Geneva, we have seen a dramatic improvement in that body’s effectiveness. In just two years, the HRC has gone from an institution that too often was incapable of addressing real human rights crises – yet was very capable at unfairly focusing disproportionately on Israel – to a more serious body, repeatedly responding to pressing human rights situations in real time, with concrete action and a unified voice.
In just the past year, we have engaged states on the Human Rights Council to call special sessions and launch international commissions of inquiry to investigate human rights violations in Cote d’Ivoire, Libya, and Syria, promoting international accountability and making clear that the eyes of the world are watching. The states on the Human Rights Council voted to appoint a special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran, and for the first time in five years, adopted a resolution on human rights in Belarus. Through the HRC, we and our partners bolstered cooperative efforts with the interim government in Tunisia and the governments in Kyrgyzstan and Guinea, to ensure attention is paid to human rights obligations during their transitions. Through a joint statement by 74 countries, we set the stage for the HRC to consider this month the alarming human rights situation in Yemen. And in June, a geographically-diverse majority of states on the Human Rights Council adopted the first resolution in the history of the United Nations on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights.
How was this change possible? How did the Human Rights Council, which for its first few years was criticized as being little improvement over the Commission on Human Rights that it replaced, undergo such a radical transformation? And how did we launch this change despite rigid bloc politics in Geneva, which in many ways were worse than in the General Assembly in New York?
In a word: leadership. Not by walking away and criticizing from afar. Not by marching in and demanding that other states choose between our way or the highway. In the real world, that is not how diplomacy works. In the real world, if you want to achieve your diplomatic goals, you need to approach your international partners with a certain seriousness and commitment.
Do not underestimate the hard work needed to make that happen. I know firsthand that the transformation at the HRC has come only through an immense effort by U.S. diplomats and our partners. It has required overcoming countries that would rather the Human Rights Council not be particularly effective. We have needed to find a diplomatic way to point out where governments’ words and actions in Geneva bear little resemblance to their domestic respect for human rights. More often than not, it has required utilizing bilateral diplomatic channels to pursue multilateral goals, an approach that has not traditionally been as fully employed as it ought to have been (although our regional bureaus and bilateral embassies have been strong partners).
And the change is real. Our closest allies both on and off the Human Rights Council have stated in no uncertain terms their gratitude for our engagement and for our success in steering the HRC away from its less-than-stellar history. Right now, the one thing we could do to reverse those gains would be to walk away and hand leadership back to those who would rather the Human Rights Council not be a serious human rights body.
Yet that is exactly what some are now proposing we do: pull down the flag and go home. Leave the Human Rights Council to the human rights abusers. Announce in a full voice that until HRC membership achieves perfection, the United States will treat the entire organization with contempt. And for good measure, broaden these self-inflicted injuries by withholding U.S. funding across the UN system.
This approach would restrict U.S. engagement at the UN and with the world. It is not in the U.S. interest. It would not actually achieve reform of the UN Secretariat or the Human Rights Council, or change the course of other states’ actions in UN bodies. And it conflates the roles played by the United Nations itself with the actions taken by sovereign governments in the UN’s chambers.
In real world diplomacy, it is pretty rare that much is achieved by standing outside the negotiating room with your arms crossed. And doing so is no way to support your closest allies when they need you most.
Now, of course the UN can be improved. For example, it is outrageous that the Human Rights Council has one agenda item focused solely on Israel, and one on all other country-specific human rights situations around the world. Item 7 should be eliminated. We have had major successes in keeping governments such as Iran and Syria off the Human Rights Council, but it is shameful when regional groups still sometimes select countries to represent their regions on the Human Rights Council that trample those very rights they should uphold and promote.
Unfortunately, Member States still sometimes take action in the UN General Assembly or elsewhere in the UN with which we vehemently disagree. We will continue to fight hard against any efforts to use UN bodies to delegitimize Israel, as well as efforts to unilaterally use the UN as the venue for addressing final status issues that must be decided in direct negotiations between the parties. When one such effort was made in February to inappropriately insert the UN into such matters, we vetoed it.
President Obama has been very clear that unilateral initiatives will not bring about a two-state solution and an enduring peace, which is what both parties and the United States seek. There is no substitute for direct negotiations between the parties. That is why the Administration continues to be focused on a negotiated outcome that will lead to the establishment of two states for two peoples, with an independent, viable Palestinian state alongside a secure state of Israel.
So while there are some legitimate criticisms of the United Nations, they frequently reflect the efforts some Member States pursue to divide and apportion blame instead of working together to solve the challenges of our time. But those missteps pale in comparison to the concrete benefits that our robust engagement at the United Nations provides the United States.
That is why we reject arguments made by some that would cede global leadership to those who would not act in our interest, or abandon the real, tangible gains that have come with enhanced U.S. multilateral engagement.
We reject also the alarmist suggestions that the UN is somehow running roughshod over U.S. interests. Aside from being factually wrong, they ignore the many ways that U.S. multilateral diplomacy advances our national security and supports the security of our allies, partners, and friends.
It misses the political reality of what actually happens across the UN system. For the most part, few substantive actions are adopted in UN bodies without U.S. support and leadership. That does not mean that achieving our goals is easy, or that we always get what we seek. There are plenty of instances where we have to press long and hard for an outcome that is not always certain. Yes, we have setbacks at the UN. Yes, there are times when we fall short, because other states’ interests clash with ours and those of our partners. But by and large, through engagement across the UN, the United States is able to advance our foreign policy, and find shared solutions to global problems.
That, in part, is why we oppose the backwards calls we again are hearing to withhold U.S. dues, given the impact doing so would have on U.S. influence and leadership across the UN system. For too long, the United States played games with our UN assessments, paying them when we wanted to and withholding them whenever we felt doing so was somehow justified. It undermined U.S. credibility, and hurt our ability to get things done at the UN.
But all this has changed. President Obama’s decision to pay our UN assessments in full has given us greater influence with allies, partners, and others, and helped us achieve both our policy goals at the UN as well as much-needed management reform and budget discipline. For too long, our failure to keep current on our UN dues hamstrung our diplomats and hurt our national interest. Our adversaries used to change the subject to our arrears when we pressed them on an important policy matter. But they no longer can do so.
U.S. global leadership at the UN means we pay our fair share of the burden – not more, but also not less. But do not misunderstand me: to be sure, we are all aware that there are shortcomings in the way the UN carries out its business. As careful stewards of taxpayer dollars, this Administration is proud of the management and budget reform initiatives we have worked with the United Nations to create and implement. The United States is second to none in pursuing a more efficient, effective, and transparent UN, and our reform efforts get results.
We have recently launched the second phase of our United Nations Transparency and Accountability Initiative (UNTAI-II). This will build upon our successes of the past four years, with specific benchmarks, to monitor and evaluate progress across the entire UN system. We will work to achieve even greater reforms and improvements in the areas of oversight, accountability, ethics, financial management, and good governance. Most importantly, these efforts will help ensure that the United Nations is strong enough to bear the burdens we must place upon it in the decades to come.
So amid these calls for U.S. retrenchment, our allies and partners are wondering whether robust U.S. engagement at the UN will be sustained. They are asking themselves whether, in this era of intense global interconnectedness, the United States will abandon our unique position as a beacon of freedom and democracy, and cede our global leadership role, by restricting our engagement with the United Nations.
Let me be clear: we must not, and we will not.
As the President stated in March,
“American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well, to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs, and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.”
With those words, President Obama honors a long and bipartisan tradition of U.S. multilateral leadership, one that is as important today as it was in 1945.
On this, my predecessor had simple words in 1961, words that have lost none of their force in the intervening half-century. He knew then, as we know now, that U.S. engagement at the United Nations must be robust if it is to succeed. “The luxury of sitting out every second dance,” he said, “is not for the leaders.”
As I have highlighted today, too many U.S. interests require strong multilateral engagement across the UN system for us to simply walk away and cede U.S. leadership at the United Nations. Too many of our most pressing foreign policy challenges require shared multilateral solutions for us to undercut our global influence by withholding our UN dues.
On the eve of the 66th UN General Assembly, there remains much work to be done to help the United Nations adapt structures built in 1945 to better address the challenges of 2011 and beyond. The world has changed faster than the United Nations has. But if we are to protect our security against transnational threats, advance our values as an alternative to extremism, and promote the international stability and interaction we need in order to advance our economy, U.S. engagement in the United Nations is more essential than it has ever been.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak at USIP, and I look forward to your questions.
