Tag Archives: freedom

Going Boldly Where We Have Been Before: Reengaging America Effectively in Europe

JFK and Ronald Reagan“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” President John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1962

 “I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles.” President Ronald Reagan, March 23, 1983

Two decades apart, two U.S. Presidents, one Democrat and one Republican, affirmed similar American resolve in reaching for the stars. Neither JFK nor Ronald Reagan voiced concern over the views of others when it came to our legitimate ambitions. The thrust of the Apollo program and “Star Wars” was: This is U.S. policy. This is what will happen. As a consequence, we landed first on the Moon and won the Cold War. As a consequence, our words had credibility.

Scroll forward to today and we see much of U.S. transatlantic policy expressed in assertions of the limits of U.S. influence or interest and temporary, reactive engagement. At a time of dramatic challenges to European security and international law by the Kremlin, we puzzle over what Mr. Putin wants and how far he will go, rather than implementing U.S. strategic policy, regardless of what Mr. Putin wants or does.

The time has come to pronounce U.S. policy in and with Europe in JFK and Ronald Reagan terms. Here are some suggestions:

  1. To open a new era of transatlantic prosperity, we will greatly intensify and resource a comprehensive and long-term effort to achieve the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Failure or a partial deal is not an option. We can and will do big things with our European partners.
  2. We will enlarge NATO to all European countries that wish to join and that meet Alliance requirements, starting immediately with those that are ready now. No exceptions; no NATO member vetoes unrelated to a country’s qualifications. No non-NATO vetoes at all.  We will openly encourage our European allies to take a similarly ambitious enlargement approach to new European Union memberships.
  3. We choose to stop U.S. military reductions in Europe and will add a new permanent U.S. presence to the territories of all Alliance member nations unable to meet challenges to their security without our support. It shall be our nation’s policy to provide lethal defense weapons to any non-NATO country in Europe whose democratic ambitions are threatened by outside force and intervention.
  4. We will engage in a comprehensive and intensive effort to pursue the competition for hearts and minds in favor of free societies, open markets, and human rights, reclaiming the public pulpit for democratic values.
  5. We choose to take the fight to all those who threaten the safety and security of our society and that of our friends, together with allies and partners, or alone if we must. In that effort, we will bring the full diplomatic, economic, and military arsenal of the United States to bear, excluding no option available to us.

We do this, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Europe, U.S. Foreign Relations, U.S. Leadership

Free Press = Free Society

Information is power. Few people can make a living, hold their governments accountable, and educate their children without a healthy supply of free- flowing information. Citizens need accurate, timely, independent news they can trust. So do businesses and markets. And so do governments. Media freedom keeps societies and economies vibrant, energetic, and healthy. When the free flow of news and information is cut off, individuals suffer. Societies suffer. Economies suffer.

But even as we observe World Press Freedom Day this year, threats against journalists are rising. As of last December, the Committee to Protect Journalists counted 179 reporters in jail around the world. And journalists continue to be threatened, attacked, disappeared, or murdered for trying to report the news.

In the past year, the world witnessed both the promise of, and the peril to, a free press. Throughout the Middle East and North Africa, journalists, bloggers, filmmakers and pundits chronicled the protests sweeping across the region, while some citizens armed with nothing but cell phones risked their lives to upload the truth – by text, tweet, and pixel. In doing so, they were exercising a fundamental freedom enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Yet too many governments attempt to censor the media, directly or indirectly. Too many investigative journalists are being silenced, many for exposing corruption – at local, state, or national government levels. Too many attacks and murders of journalists go unpunished.  In some cases, it is not just governments attacking, intimidating, and threatening journalists. It’s also criminals – drug cartels – terrorists or political factions. When journalists are threatened, attacked, jailed, or disappeared, other journalists self-censor. They stop reporting stories. They tone down stories. They omit details. Sources stop helping them. Their editors hesitate to print stories. Fear replaces truth. All of our societies suffer.

Like Estonia, the United States looks to all governments to take the steps necessary to create the same space we Americans and Estonians have enshrined in our societies for independent journalists to do their work without fear of violence or persecution. We pay special tribute to those courageous journalists, bloggers, and citizens who have sacrificed their lives, health, or freedom so that others could know the truth. And we honor the role of free and independent media in creating sustainable democracies and open, healthy societies.

1 Comment

Filed under American Values, Civil Society, freedom of information

Internet Freedom AND Intellectual Property Rights

The positive power of the internet has changed the paradigm of international diplomacy, of global governance, and indeed the human condition.  Secretary of State Clinton articulated most clearly last year that the United States, “On the spectrum of internet freedom, [places itself] on the side of openness.”

Over the course of the last several weeks, interested parties in America and around the world have reacted strongly for or against efforts in the U.S. to maintain internet freedom while attempting to find a way to protect the vested property rights that creators, artists, and engineers have in their product.  At issue were two proposed pieces of legislation called the Stop Online Piracy Act (“SOPA”) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (“PIPA.”) Amongst all the complexity of this issue is a rather clear goal we Americans share with our democratic partners and friends around the world:  Full, unfettered and free access to the internet by the global citizenry AND the protection of the intellectual wealth of our innovators and creative minds from on-line theft.  

As we seek to address both of these interests, it should come as no surprise that our efforts of protecting intellectual property online cause legitimate attention to the scope of any regulation of the internet.  Of course neither our government nor the American people wish unintentionally to provide a pretext to those who wish to suppress democratic rights under the guise of “legal protections.”  Once completed, U.S. legislation that would protect the rights of American intellectual property and internet freedom would likewise serve to protect such rights and values the world over.  Again, Secretary of State Clinton has confirmed that “there is no contradiction between intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and ensuring freedom of expression on the Internet.”

The White House meanwhile has set U.S. Administration policy regarding intellectual property legislation, stating that while piracy is a serious problem on the internet, the President will not support any proposed legislation that would reduce freedom of expression or otherwise detract from the Internet’s potential.  Both the President and our Congress have called for legislation that is narrowly-tailored with a focus on criminal activity.  Such tailoring should address U.S. and international concerns about internet freedom and its liberating role for people seeking free expression and democratic rule from one corner of the world to the other.

Two important engines of America’s economy, represented by places like Hollywood and Silicon Valley, and their international counterparts, should work together and help tailor workable laws in all our countries that will protect property rights, freedom of speech, and internet assembly.

4 Comments

Filed under American Values, Civil Society, diplomacy, freedom of information, good governance, Intellectual Property

Eliminating Violence Against Women

Women in every society, in every corner of the globe, still suffer a disproportionate amount of the inequities that exist today. And more often than not, they suffer those inequities at the hands of men.  In too many parts of the world, women are victims of domestic violence, are being trafficked and sold into sexual slavery, or are subjected to the horror of genital mutilation.

So today I want to lend my male voice to the call of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to speak out on November 25, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. This must not be a day of women demanding their rights while we men stand idly by. Nor can it be a single day commitment.

Not only because men have long had a dominant role in our societies are we the ones who have a special responsibility to shout out for the rights of women. It is also a simple matter of fairness, justice, and decency.  We men need to step forward to demand and protect the inviolable rights of our mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends that we have always insisted on for ourselves.  Women’s rights begin with freedom from fear of violence and oppression in any and all of its forms.

And gentlemen, as Americans and Estonians, as proud citizens of modern democracies, we can do even more than just demand the right thing.  We can recommit ourselves to deepening our global partnership of concerted action on behalf of the other 50% of humanity.

 

3 Comments

Filed under American Values, Civil Society

A Europe that Matters

Last week a gave a talk to students, faculty and visitors at Estonia’s Tallinn Technical University expanding on my earlier blog on this subject.  The engagement with a full house of very bright and knowledgeable individuals was invigorating and challenging.  So much so that I decided to come back in the future and explore the issue of “An America that Matters.”  Meanwhile, I want to share my presentation of last week on this forum.  The provocative question I posed and sought to answer was:  In today’s global political, economic, strategic and moral environment, does Europe still matter?  And more specifically, does it still matter to the United States?

In the interest of full disclosure, let me be clear that I come at this issue with a certain bias.  As a U.S. diplomat, I have dedicated a large portion of my career to acting as a contributor to, and a steward of, the trans-Atlantic relationship.   As a result of my professional experiences, as well as my own personal story-I was born in Europe – I have always closely followed the relationship between our continents. It was with great interest that I read an op-ed by the president of the highly prestigious American Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, entitled “Why Europe No Longer Matters” in the June 18th edition of one of our country’s most important newspapers, the Washington Post.  Richard is a former colleague and a friend and I am grateful that his think piece gives me the opportunity to talk to you about his thesis and my own today.

Richard Haass is a brilliant international affairs expert, who, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has joined other political scientists in seeking to define and characterize the emerging new world order – or disorder as some might call it.  An early consensus of sorts was formed among many who believed that as the U.S.S.R and the United States were the two major world powers before 1991, by virtue of winning the Cold War, the United States became the world’s sole superpower.  Some went further and characterized the United States as the only hyper-power of the world and a historically unique nation that could singularly exert is might across the entire globe.

However short-lived that last assessment, since 9/11, the wars in the Middle East and South Asia, and the U.S. and world economic and debt crisis, an equally large number of experts today conclude that the uni-polar world of U.S. dominance has rather rapidly transitioned into a multi-polar world of various powers exerting their influence — not unlike 18th Century Europe. It is against this backdrop that I would like to examine with you Richard’s arguments and conclusions and my response on Europe’s status today. For brevity’s sake, let’s call his conclusion “Europe No” and mine “Europe Yes.”

First, let’s put my own perspective of Europe on the table:  Europe does matter.  That is not to say I fully disagree with Mr. Haass’ arguments.  In fact, I actually concur with many of his views about Europe and the way it exercises its role in the world today.  That said, however, I arrive at a different conclusion about Europe’s ultimate standing and importance as an international player and as a partner to the United States.    

So now to the debate and first the strategic security dimension.  “Europe No” posits that if NATO didn’t exist today, no one would feel compelled to create it.  The “Europe No” argument cites inadequate European financial and physical commitment to Alliance action as a case in point.  It points to the Libya operation, despite the success of NATO support to the Libyan people, as only the most recent example of lack of organization, lack of participation, and lack of capacity.  So for “Europe No”, if NATO stands for U.S.-European strategic power, then only the U.S. and a very few number of Europeans actually matter.  I believe “Europe No” would concede that Estonia counts among the allies that do matter.  In that we would certainly agree, but also concur as I would that not all allies are pulling their weight equally.

“Europe No” looks at divergent attitudes between Americans and Europeans and cites the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan as demonstrating this parting of ways, along with the emerging European cultural norm of not accepting any casualties in the prosecution of a war.  Europe No” looks at NATO as a relic of the past, and along with an Asia-centric shift in world power, economic might, and U.S. orientation, sees this as a clear indicator that old alliances and relationships are dead or on their death-bed:  “Europe and the United States have changed. The World has changed.”  No argument with that last comment:  We have all changed.  Asia is incredibly important to the United States and the world and our relations with this emerging international economic juggernaut will inform much of the next century.  Other players are also increasingly demanding attention and input in a global structure where their economic power and strategic influence are required to make the world go round.

Where “Europe Yes” parts from “Europe No” is in the conclusion that with the entry of other power players into the new international order, existing participants are by definition marginalized or worse, sidelined completely.  NATO, if it can muster the political will, still wields an extremely powerful punch, matched by no one.  As to trade, 40% of all world economic activity still takes place between Europe and the United States.  Hardly an insignificant amount that does matter!

“Europe No” also describes the decline of a common U.S. and European set of interests, in the past, based on historical patterns of American elites that traced their ancestry to Europe.  Today’s broader elite in the U.S., Europe No, would argue relates to African, Asian, and Latin American roots and does not share the emotional or intellectual ties to Europe that defined transatlantic relations in the 20th century.  The “Europe Yes” response:  agreed that American elites are much more diverse today than in the mid 1900’s.  But I contend, for instance, that a Chinese-American raised in San Francisco has far more in common with an individual from the town of Rakvere, Estonia or Manchester, England, than he does with a Chinese individual raised in Beijing.  The American and European belief in democracy individual freedom and open markets transcends ethnic heritage and will continue to bind American motivations and goals throughout the world with Europe.

Admittedly, Europe is not the singular center of America’s universe.  It never really was.  America, since its inception with powerful European roots, has steadily continued to develop its global vocation.  But our ties to Europe form a critically important partnership – and, by the way – one that has never been one characterized by full harmony or equality of strength on each side of the Atlantic.  France kicked out NATO headquarters in 1966 and did not return to the unified NATO military command until 2009.  In 1983 Germans threw Molotov cocktails at the U.S. Embassy in protest over introduction of U.S. medium range nuclear missiles in Europe – for the defense of Europe!  And yet NATO stands today, 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and is fighting – and winning – in Afghanistan, and just helped successfully to turn the tide in Libya.  Pretty good for an irrelevant Alliance.

Does this mean that we Americans are always happy with the security posture of each one of our allies?  Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as recently as June of this year, stated that he had long harbored concerns about NATO becoming, “a two-tiered alliance that is split between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership but don’t want to share the risks and the costs.”   Doesn’t sound very happy to me.  And he was right.  Does that mean Europe is now or about to become irrelevant?  It does not.  Our very disagreements, sometimes loud and in public, bear testimony to the continuing strength of an Alliance not simply based on realpolitik or pure self-interest.  Ours is a value partnership, freely entered into by free peoples – a transatlantic bulwark that remains essential not despite an increasingly multi-polar world, but because of it.  And by the way, let’s not fall into the trap of characterizing certain opinions in Europe as “the European opinion.”  For instance, I would point to our broad agreement with our Estonian allies on the vast majority of issues.  Estonian opinion is no less the “European opinion” than is the opinion of any other ally or partner on this continent.

Implicit in “Europe No” is also the thought that Europe is somehow “solved.”  There are no more European problems, so why focus on a place that has no issues?  Fair enough, not even the most pessimistic among us believe that fighting may erupt anew in the Alsace.  But what about the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia and the continuing tensions in parts of the Balkans?  What about the regime in Belarus?   What about energy security concerns?   What about the euro crisis and its effect on U.S. debt issues?  What about a drop in the NYSE in response to trouble on the DAX?  Just like the U.S., Europe will also never be “done.”  The challenge, the dynamism, and the capacity of seeking solutions on both sides of the Atlantic continue.  

And finally, beyond the security and economic dimensions, Europe plays a determined role alongside the United States on a vast range of global issues from human rights to the environment.  Despite occasional disagreements on tactics, the United States and Europe form a critically important policy community.  Our combined influence in world events weighs heavily on other countries and actors.  That is a powerful tool and a major responsibility we share.  Authoritarian regimes risk vital foreign investment and sanctions from Europe and the U.S.  Without our combined condemnation of Sudan over the genocide in Darfur and without our further engagement to encourage a referendum in South Sudan, would Khartoum have ever come to an agreement with the South?  Without sustained U.S. and European pressure, would the dissident Aung San Suu Kyi ever have been released from her house arrest imposed by the military junta of Burma?And together, Europe and the U.S. are central to cleaning up our environment, developing new forms of energy, and eliminating world hunger.  Wherever there is a need for action, we are present.

In contrast to vocal U.S. foreign policy and moral leadership, Europe does not always make the same headlines or dominate diplomatic discussions, but Europe’s voice counts, especially in unison with ours.  The example that the peaceful, democratic nations of Europe set for the rest of the world on the issues of democratization, human rights, the environment, conflict mediation, and civil action is unquestionably a major force for good in the world.  A force unmatched by emerging power centers in other parts of the globe.

So, the issue for me and for “Europe Yes” then is not whether Europe still matters, but how Europeans choose to exercise the significant power and influence they possess.  The American challenge as close allies and partners is to continue to insist that Europe must matter.  And that is one of the key lessons of the post-Cold War 21st century:  Abdication of global responsibility is no more an option for Europe today than it has ever been for the United States.

1 Comment

Filed under American Values, Peace and Security, U.S. -Estonian Relations, U.S. Foreign Relations

Security And Safety Inside 21st Century Democracies

Tallinn experienced a security scare last week as an explosives carrying gunman threatened the staff of the Estonian Ministry of Defense.  With characteristic resolute competence, Estonian security forces ended the threat by shooting the gunman while ensuring that no innocent life was lost.  Other than the press, few people outside the capital of this peaceful and law abiding country were even aware of the dramatic and deadly event in the Ministry.  That’s both good, but also something to think about.  My family, my colleagues in our Embassy, and I are certainly enjoying the hospitality, the beauty, and the relative safety of this country.   I can’t imagine that Estonians loose a lot of sleep over the safety of their cities, towns and villages, or their homes and their families.  They have little reason to.  But as last week’s incident demonstrated, there is no such thing as “it can’t happen here.” 

In America and for Americans, as well as for many others, tragically, it has happened.  Not all that long ago, we would never have contemplated taking of our shoes off in an airport or walking through metal detectors to visit a museum.  Visiting an American Embassy was relatively easy not that long ago and and streets around our diplomatic missions were not closed off.   Tragic experience has changed all that.  We have allowed our lives to become far more complicated in exchange for greater security, not because we want to, but because we have to.  Over the years we have learned to make security precautions less intrusive and more rational.  We have also become more security conscious without being security obsessed.  In the end, we are more secure in a more dangerous world. 

The debate over how much security is enough and how much is excessive will never end in free and freedom-loving societies.  Especially when we are confronted with threats from within, rather than with outside agression, we are loath to relinguish yet another slice of physical and psychological freedom in exchange for greater protection.  We resent being shaken in the belief that our best protection are the just and democratic societies we have built.  However unsettling, the threats we face only reaffirm our most basic principles of personal liberty.  Gritting our teeth, we accept that total security is illusory and we adopt responsible management of  risks to our safety.  Depending on individual national experiences, democracies pass through these resentment and realization phases at their own pace — but inevitably arrive at similar conclusions.

2 Comments

Filed under American Values, Civil Society, good governance, Peace and Security

A New Opportunity for the Serbian People

Serbia’s President Boris Tadic has just announced the arrest of accused war criminal Radko Mladic.  During my time as  U.S. Ambassador to Serbia and Montenegro and then the Republic of Serbia  from 2004-2007, I did all I could for this day to come.   This is the news that the victims and the families of the victims of the worst autrocities in post-war Europe have been waiting for.  This could also be the break for Serbia’s future that so many of the Serbian people have been waiting for.  During my time in Belgrade, I found most of the Serbian people on the side of justice and for their country to finally be able to move forward.  I reassured them then that the United States wanted to be supportive of a Serbia integrated into the web of Euro-Atlantic relationships.

With Maldic now hopefully being readied for transfer to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, this is also another opportunity for Serbia to take a new approach to its other remaining obstacle to seizing a better tomorrow – its relationship with its neighbor Kosovo.  A positive and constructive relationship with Kosovo that accepts the reality, however unhappily, of Kosovo’s independence, would also allow Serbia at last  to look to the future, rather than the grievances of the past.  For the sake of all my Serbian friends who have waited long enough for a better tomorrow, I hope they are given the chance to seize it now.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Values, Civil Society, U.S. Foreign Relations