Remarks on U.S. Foreign Policy
By Ambassador Thomas C. Foley
NUI Galway Law Society
November 14, 2007
Good evening. It is a great pleasure to be here with you tonight. I appreciate the invitation of the National University Ireland Galway Law Society to talk about a very important - and often misunderstood - topic, U.S. foreign policy.
I say U.S. foreign policy is important because, like it or not, U.S. foreign policy affects every region of the world and affects most residents of the globe. So everyone, not just Americans, have a stake in both the priorities and success of U.S. foreign policy.
The United States has come under considerable criticism for its foreign policy since the terrorist attack of 9/11. The criticism has affected relationships between the United States and some European governments, as well as the large reservoir of goodwill that existed between Europeans and Americans after the break-up of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Iron Curtain. I would like to propose to you that U.S. foreign policy, which a decade ago most Europeans considered benign, or at least aligned with their interests, really hasn’t changed that much. But rather, it is European perceptions that have changed as a result of Iraq and Europe’s changing role in the world. I hope I am able to convince you of this because Europeans have as much to gain as Americans from the success of U.S. foreign policy.
The chief U.S. foreign policy objectives can be summed-up simply. The United States is seeking to eliminate terrorism globally, stabilize regions of the world that present a threat to global peace and stability, and prevent additional countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition, the United States provides humanitarian relief during conflicts and following natural disasters and seeks to assist third world governments in fighting disease and famine. The United States also seeks to assist third world governments with development and eliminating poverty, and with transitioning toward representational government, rule of law, and protecting basic human rights where these don’t exist.
Do these goals sound familiar? They should because I suspect they are the same basic foreign policy goals sought by the government of Ireland and most, if not all, members of the European Union. Where the differences come is in the details, methods, and how various countries focus their priorities based on their capabilities. The United States with its military capability and global reach has options open to it that most other countries don’t. Ireland, as a neutral country, focuses on humanitarian assistance, supporting peacekeeping efforts, and, where it can, encouraging nuclear non-proliferation.
So if we agree on the overall objectives, what are all the disagreements and hard feelings really about?
Well, Iraq is certainly an important contributor. It is widely accepted in Europe that the invasion of Iraq was ill-advised and the effort to establish a stable and fair government there is failing. On the other hand, the invasion of Afghanistan is widely accepted as legitimate and succeeding. But is there really as big a difference in the justifications for and progress in Iraq and Afghanistan as one would be lead to believe from public opinion? Is it reasonable to label one as “ill-advised and failing” and the other “warranted and succeeding?” I, personally, don’t think so. From the point of view of our common foreign policy objectives, more was and is at stake in Iraq than Afghanistan. At the time critical decisions were made to invade Iraq, Iraq was believed by all of the key players to possess weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, Iraq posed much more serious threats to Middle Eastern regional stability and energy security for Europeans and Americans alike. And it still does.
So why has Iraq so colored European perceptions of U.S. foreign policy? I think Europeans, who have developed more of a consensus culture than Americans, considered U.S. actions there aggressive and took offense at the U.S. acting without the consent of important European allies. But maybe more important is the implicit message that since the end of the Cold War, Europe no longer controls as much of its destiny and security as it once did. Terrorism, emerging economic powerhouses in China and India, and energy security are external threats that Europe’s governments cannot address and resolve by merely agreeing among themselves. When the United States chose to proceed in Iraq without the consent of some important European allies, it may have brought home too clearly this message of a larger world in which Europe doesn’t have as much control as it used to.
Is it possible that perceptions of U.S. foreign policy are being distorted by European frustration with the new reality? Does it make sense for Europeans to be distancing themselves from and alienating a close relationship with the United States when we share nearly identical foreign policy goals and the United States is willing to foot the bill for achieving those goals when Europe won’t or can’t?
The governments of the United States, Germany, and France quickly became uncomfortable with the spat over Iraq and have over the last three years made successful efforts to reaffirm the trans-Atlantic partnership. But public opinion in Europe has not responded as quickly.
I can say with confidence that from a government-to-government perspective our partnerships with European countries are now back together and once again very solid. France is our leading partner in dealing with the crisis in Lebanon, commanding a multinational force trying to defend the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Siniora. France is considering helping in Afghanistan and may even decide to more fully engage in NATO. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom are our leading partners in trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. And we have strongly supported the British and Irish Governments in bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland.
Europe and the United States are on the same side of trying to achieve the final steps in assuring peace and stability in the Balkans. We are working together to achieve a final status for Kosovo and to enable those in Bosnia and Herzegovina to build modern constitutional states. And recently, Europeans are seeing once again the value of the trans-Atlantic relationship in dealing with a newly confident, but also newly blustery, Russia.
The U.S.-European relationship is not, however, returning to what it was. There has been a very dramatic and undeniable shift in the relationship, perhaps the most important shift in a century, and I think this shift is part of what has frustrated Europe in its relationship with the United States since 9/11. This shift is that the U.S. policy towards Europe is no longer about Europe. It is about the rest of the world. And the U.S.-European partnership is no longer about divisions in Europe, as it was over most of the 20th century. It is about the need to address global threats and other challenges outside of Europe, most of which only emerged in the late 20th century.
From April, 1917, when the U.S. put a million American soldiers into Belgium and France to help win the First World War, to 1999, when the United States and its NATO allies rescued one million Kosovar Albanians from Milosevic's ethnic cleansing, U.S. foreign policy was centered on Europe. It was centered on the divisions in Europe, on the two world wars, on the Cold War, which millions of American service members fought for a generation, and here in Ireland on the Troubles. During that time, if you had asked any American diplomat which area of the world was most vital for American national interests, he or she certainly would have said Europe. It was the epicenter of America's global and strategic thinking. It was why NATO was created.
When U.S. foreign policy was mostly about Europe, the nations of Europe, particularly France, the UK, and Germany, played a critical role in the success or failure of that foreign policy. Now that Europe is stable and at peace everywhere except in the Balkans and on its periphery, the priorities of U.S. foreign policy have turned to other parts of the globe. The United States hopes Europe will be a partner in these new priorities and it is certainly in Europe’s interest to do so, but Europe’s role isn’t what it once was. This is partly because European nations aren’t parties to the conflicts, thankfully, but also because Europe isn’t contributing very significantly to the cost of achieving our mutual global objectives either in euros or in military assets.
This is an important issue that Europe must address. During and since the Cold War, the United States paid much of the bill for Europe’s security. The military threat to Europe from the Soviet Union has disappeared, but other threats have and will emerge. Europe does not currently have the capability to defend itself against a serious external threat. Without that capability, Europe is vulnerable and must depend primarily on the United States to address these threats. That, I am sure, accounts for some of the angst we have seen over who does what when and who is included in these decisions.
Given this background, what agenda should the United States and Europe be pursuing in 2008 and beyond as we seek to work together throughout the world? First, there remains the challenge of resolving continuing conflict and political uncertainty in the Balkans. Final resolution of these issues will fulfill the opportunity for Europe to become fully united, peaceful, and stable.
A second intra-European issue that is a critical part of our current agenda is what to do about Russia. We have to assess how we relate to modern Russia, how we partner with Russia, but also how we protect NATO and the European Union and the states of Central Europe from challenges they may face from Russia. We have all seen the difficulties in the trans-Atlantic/Russian relationship in recent months. Russia has suspended its participation in negotiations on the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and has criticized U.S. efforts to build a modest missile defense system to protect Europe from terrorist threats from the Middle East. Russia has been uncooperative in determining the final status of Kosovo; imperiled the territorial integrity of Georgia and Moldova by supporting separatist regimes; acted in a heavy-handed manner in the Baltic States; and has used its monopoly control over the energy resources of Central Asia to gain leverage over its neighbors and Western Europe.
On the other hand, on the two major issues we face globally -- our ability to defend ourselves against terrorism and our ability to restrain countries from becoming nuclear powers -- Russia is one of our strongest partners.
Looking ahead and setting aside those issues on which we from time-to-time disagree, the United States, Europe, and Russia face five critical global issues on which we must work together. The first of these is Afghanistan. We are engaged in an American and European joint venture to assist the Afghan Government, the Afghan people, and the neighbors of Afghanistan, such as Pakistan and India, to successfully beat back the efforts of the Taliban and al Qaeda to retake part or all of Afghanistan. We are providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan and are helping build the foundations for a stable and fair government there. We must succeed in Afghanistan and not allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to reestablish their ability to use Afghanistan as a safe harbor from which to export terrorism.
This is particularly true with recent developments in Pakistan. A potentially unstable Pakistan adds the prospect of the Taliban and al-Qaeda obtaining nuclear weapons should they regain a foothold in Afghanistan from which they could expand their control into a destabilized Pakistan.
A second issue is the Middle East. We need to formulate a combined U.S.-European effort to deal with the four big challenges that confront us in the Middle East. The most difficult of these is Iraq. By most informed accounts, things are improving in Iraq and the outlook is better there than six months ago. Despite disagreements about whether or not the coalition forces should have entered Iraq, Europeans have a large stake in a successful outcome there. Whatever one’s political views on Iraq, and no matter how much emotional appeal there may be for some characterizing Iraq as a failure, the U.S. goal of establishing a stable and fair government in Iraq is both worthy and serves the interests of the entire civilized world. Most European countries that were not part of the coalition are emerging from an unproductive ‘I told you so’ phase to finding ways to help assure a successful outcome. France’s recent offer of assistance in Iraq is a very encouraging and welcome sign of this shift.
The second Middle East challenge is the common interest we have in convincing, cajoling, and sanctioning the Iranian government to ensure that they do not become a nuclear weapons state and do not have the capacity to become the most dominant state in the region, which is the ambition of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The third Middle East challenge is Lebanon. We must protect the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Siniora in Lebanon against the axis of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, who want to destabilize that government, drive Siniora from power, and put Hezbollah in charge.
The fourth Middle East challenge is the Palestinian issue. Our government’s efforts to seek peace between Israel and the Palestinians needs, and I believe has, the support of all the major nations of Europe. The U.S. Government continues to support the Palestinian Authority Government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. In 2007 we will provide $364 million in aid to the Palestinians and lend them $228 million through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. We welcome the significant assistance provided by the EU. Together with our EU partners, we will urge Israel to help bolster the new Palestinian Authority Government and continue to seek a single Palestinian state, which we believe is necessary for peace and stability in the Middle East. President Bush has called for an international meeting at the end of November, which we hope will significantly move the Middle East peace process forward.
A third global issue is Africa. Europe and the United States must work together to confront the many problems, and realize the many opportunities, that are presented to Europe and the United States in Africa. This is a new area of cooperation for both of us. The U.S. has always been a large provider of aid in Africa, but more recently has significantly increased its level of aid and emphasized new development assistance as well. President Bush has committed $15 billion and requested from Congress another $30 billion for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief – PEPFAR – which focuses on HIV/AIDS relief in sub-Saharan Africa. At the same time, the United States has nearly quadrupled American development assistance to Africa in the last five years. Whether it is to prevent disease – such as HIV/AIDS and malaria – alleviate poverty, or resolve conflicts, Europe and America have a common interest in doing what is necessary to help Africa deal with these and other critical problems. In addition to being ‘the right thing to do’, helping solve Africa’s problems will have long-term benefits to both Europe and the United States.
The fourth global issue – and this is really more of an opportunity – is the United Nations. In many places around the world, the United Nations is playing an indispensable role in meeting a wide spectrum of human needs. It will be up to the wealthiest contributors to the U.N. system – and to the permanent members of the Security Council – to lead the way in helping Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon revitalize the United Nations and reinforce its ability to be effective at peacekeeping. We just talked about Africa. In Africa, whether it is in Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, Sudan, or Somalia, it is the United Nations that suffering people look to for effective international peacekeeping. We need a combined American-European effort to reinforce the Secretary General’s efforts to rebuild U.N. peacekeeping, and to make the United Nations a leading force for stability around the world.
The fifth global issue is whether the United States and Europe can engage and work together on the great and largely new multilateral challenges resulting from globalization. In the future, the agenda in world affairs will not be the traditional agenda of war and peace, of struggle over ideologies or territory. Instead, the agenda will be cooperation on global threats from climate change, access to water, combating international crime cartels (including narcotics smugglers and those who traffic women and children), and global terrorism, with its potential access to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
These global threats – and others that perhaps we cannot yet see – will likely replace conflict as the great challenges facing us in the 21st century. Not one of them recognizes national borders. No matter what our power is as a single country – whether, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Ireland, or the United States – none of us can succeed by attacking these threats alone.
What does this all mean for Ireland? Ireland has an important role to play in the geopolitics of the 21st century. Ireland has had an extraordinary success in resolving the conflict in the North. Because of this experience, Ireland has capability, people, and the credibility to assist with conflict resolution around the world. I know this is assistance that the government of Ireland is interested in providing and other nations are interested in obtaining.
Ireland has always been generous. With its new found wealth and interest in assistance in Africa, Ireland can make a real contribution to the challenges in Africa.
Ireland also has and can play a role intermediating between the United States and the rest of Europe. Ireland and the United States know and trust each other. We have a proven ability to work together on tough problems. Ireland can help Europe understand and cooperate with the United States on critical issues in which we have a mutual interest, but don’t always see ‘eye to eye’. This is particularly true within the structures of the European Union where Ireland is admired and respected for its past and present leadership.
To play an important role in the future, however, Ireland must clarify what it means to be neutral. Ireland came upon its neutrality as a result of not wanting to enter into an alliance with the United Kingdom. But Ireland’s conflict with the United Kingdom is over. With Ireland’s economic success and political success in the EU, it has the ability to play an important role in meeting global security challenges. But that role will be limited if being neutral gets confused with being pacifist. If neutral means Ireland can’t take sides in legitimate conflicts or cannot support military engagement against its enemies or the enemies of its friends, Ireland’s role in geopolitical developments will be much more limited than it otherwise could be.
The world is a smaller and very different place from when the United States and Western Europe forged the trans-Atlantic alliance that endured for most of the 20th century. Even so, the challenges facing us, although new and different, are no less formidable. One thing that hasn’t changed is that U.S. and European foreign policy interests remain remarkably aligned. So while we debate the differences and disagreements between us, we must keep in mind that on most things we agree and we are best served by working together as closely and cooperatively as we have in the past.
Thank you very much.
