Transatlantic Relations in the Fall Semester: Priorities and Opportunities

Hello and thank you, Robin, for that introduction. And thank you for bringing together such a distinguished gathering. I am delighted to have a chance to discuss some of our thinking as we head into the new school year, the new fall semester.

I know we're speaking here under "the Rules" -- the phrase "Chatham House Rules" being redundant in this forum. Not every think tank has a set of speaking rules named after itself. But what I'd like to do is make these prepared remarks available to you, and on the web, and the Q and A will truly be under "the Rules."

I'd like to walk through a few key points:

First, as some recent polling data has shown, we've got a solid foundation for a strong transatlantic relationship being put to work on a global agenda. We need to build on this foundation.

Second, this didn't just happen by accident. It is the consequence of a deliberate approach of engagement and partnership led by President Bush and Secretary Rice as we entered the beginning of a second term of the Bush Administration, and it was reciprocated by our European Allies.

Third, we stand before an unusual number of opportunities this fall. There are a number of issues that are ripe for progress in the coming months, and we need to seize these opportunities. I'll give three examples -- Kosovo, climate change, and Afghanistan -- but there are many more. So rather than facing a period of "lame-duck-ism," we instead find ourselves at a point where renewed activism and determination on both sides of the Atlantic can make real progress on a global agenda.

Let me start with my first point -- about the foundation for transatlantic relations, and the polling data. In early September, the German Marshall Fund released its annual Transatlantic Trends report. This poll has been around since 2001, I believe, and it provides some interesting insights. Despite the way some of the findings were reported in the media, I believe we can see in this poll -- and in a Bertelsmann Foundation survey from last May -- reasons for optimism about transatlantic relations. There is positive reinforcement of some trends that have been going on for a few years, and that we began to see in other polls earlier this year.

The first thing that I would highlight in this survey is that increasingly, Europeans and Americans identify the same threats in the world that may end up affecting them personally, with roughly the same orders of magnitude of concern. In other words, the once-huge threat-perception gap has narrowed considerably. This includes the threats of international terrorism, violent Islamic extremism, climate change, economic downturn, an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

The change in public attitudes was most pronounced in Germany, and I believe that also speaks to what changes in leadership can accomplish, with Germany now having two years of experience under Chancellor Merkel. As we work with new leaders not only in Germany, but in France and the UK and, there further opportunities for fresh relationships and fresh approaches.

Another reason for optimism is that people say they are optimistic. In political polling, the key question pollsters look at is not just who a person says he or she will vote for, but who they expect to win. If group expectations flow toward a given candidate winning, it's a good sign that candidate probably will win.

Well, in a similar question, the German Marshall Fund (GMF) found that there are over 30 percent of Europeans who believe that transatlantic relations will improve beyond 2008, while less than half of that, about 15 percent, believe relations will deteriorate. A large middle -- 45 percent -- say that things are going to be about the same.

The media commentary, of course, was negative, saying that this means that "a majority think things will stay the same or get worse." But I read it differently. I leave out the middle -- those are people who aren't expressing a real opinion -- and look at the two ends. More than twice as many people expressing a real opinion expect transatlantic relations to improve, rather than deteriorate. That's therefore probably what will happen, and that's reason for optimism.

Another aspect of this poll, which also is a source of optimism, is the will that is expressed on both sides to see transatlantic partnership and cooperation. Large majorities said they wanted to see Europe and the United States act in concert to tackle the main problems of the world. This finding by the GMF largely substantiated what the Bertelsmann Foundation found in a poll this spring, which was also that Europeans wanted to work together with Americans to solve problems. But it was good to see confirmation.

In fact, only two countries among the 12 European nations surveyed expressed a preference for Europe acting without the U.S. One of them should surprise no one in this room. I am speaking, of course, of our cousins across the Channel, who have always had a strong independent streak. The other was Slovakia, and I can't help but wonder if -- given the anomaly with other Central European and EU countries -- whether this does not have more to do with domestic politics in Slovakia than international politics.

So I take all of these pieces of data and think, "You know, this is a good foundation for transatlantic relations." It now rests to us to build on this foundation. We can't squander the moment. We have to continue building. But the foundations are there.

Now to my second point. These foundations did not reappear out of nowhere. When you look to the beginning of second term in the Bush Administration, there was a conscious decision by the Administration to reach out to Europe -- moving beyond the divisions of 2003 and 2004. This was based on a recognition that we form a single democratic transatlantic community, that we face the same threats and challenges, and that if we are going to deal with these effectively, we've got to do so together.

And so this was a theme in President Bush's press conferences in the second term, starting in two days after the election, in November 2004. It was a theme of Secretary Rice's hearings when she was confirmed by the Senate to become Secretary of State. Secretary Rice's first trip as Secretary of State was to Europe to build on this desire to strengthen transatlantic partnership. President Bush's first trip as a second term president was also to Europe, to Brussels to meet with the EU in the EU institutional headquarters in Brussels, the first president to do so.

And then over the space of two and a half years, we have worked very methodically, issue-by-issue, to build an actual, strategic consensus between the United States and Europe on what it is we are trying to do in the world together. And we have worked to find the right mechanisms and formats for how to sustain this. So if you look at Kosovo, you find the Contact Group. If you look at Israel and Palestine, you find the Quartet. If you look at Lebanon, you find UNIFIL, and so on and so on.

We have built up common approaches to all these problems. We are back in the mode where we are talking with each other and trying to find common policies and trying to take action together.

And when you see that commitment from the Administration and a reciprocal effort on the part of European governments, it starts to tell you something. We have felt for a year or two that our effort to work more closely with Europeans on these global challenges has been reciprocated by European governments. We've also felt increasingly that as we engage in discussion like today's, among experts and elites, that we're in a serious dialogue -- not like the friction and separation that we would have experienced in 2003 and 2004.

But despite better working relations among governments and better dialogue among elites, public opinion has remained largely negative about the U.S and its policies. But I think the German Marshall Fund survey that I described, as well as the Bertelsmann Foundation survey that was done in May, represent the beginnings of movement in public attitudes, and that is encouraging.

Now, some people will immediately argue yes, maybe that's something. But nothing will really change as long as we have the current U.S. Administration. We just have to get through this period and only after we have a new election and a new U.S. administration will things really change. I'd like to challenge this assumption a little.

I think people do in fact realize that just because the U.S. changes leadership, that doesn't mean the problems we're dealing with in the world will just go away. They'll still be there, and we -- and that's both the United States and Europe -- will have to deal with them.

Moreover, any U.S. Administration -- present or future -- is going to have to deal with these global challenges, and will look to Europe as a partner in doing so. Indeed, there is a great deal more consensus on foreign policy across the political spectrum in the United States than many people in Europe might assume.

And there have been changes in leadership within Europe, which is significant because it creates new discussions, new dialogues and new opportunities. For example, as the German Marshall Fund survey demonstrates, since Mrs. Merkel's election there has been an enormous movement in German public opinion when it comes to perceptions. So I think that's another reason that we should be open to the prospect that more could be done now.

And this, then, takes me to my third and final point. With 16 months to go in this Administration, there are some extremely important foreign policy issues that simply won't wait. We have some rare, time-specific opportunities to make progress over the coming months. We need to be working on them together, now. And if we do, we may find we can make real headway.

I'd like to take a minute just to touch on three of these items. I think they illustrate quite clearly that this is not a period defined by lame-duck-ism, but by opportunity.

The first is Kosovo, an area you and we liberated some eight years ago, and which cannot remain in legal limbo for ever. Today, we are trying to foster a settlement between the Kosovar Albanians and the Serbs. We brought this issue to the UN Security Council back in June, but -- following a proposal by French President Sarkozy at the G8 Summit -- we have set a new Troika framework for negotiations, and set a timeline of December 10. At the end of the day, one way or another, this will result in a final status for Kosovo that will enable the region to move forward, that will enable Serbia to move forward, and will enable Kosovo to move forward.

We should not look at the issue of a Kosovo status settlement in isolation, but rather as part of a larger settlement for the whole region. For the first time in over a decade, we may be at a point where the entire region can leave behind the ethnic nationalism and bloodshed of the past, and move forward in a future based on democracy, market economy and rising prosperity, regional integration, and integration into Euroatlantic institutions.

NATO enlargement is part of this larger picture. The Bucharest NATO Summit in April 2008 is likely to invite at least one country from the region to join the Alliance, and possibly all three candidates, Croatia, Albania and Macedonia.

A settlement in Kosovo could also be accompanied by an expanded relationship with NATO for Montenegro, Bosnia and Serbia, through the Partnership for Peace, which was offered at last year's NATO Summit in Riga, and perhaps through an Intensified Dialogue on Membership Issues.

The European Union's outreach to all the countries of the region -- with Bulgaria and Romania already members, discussions with Croatia proceeding apace, and progress on Stabilization and Association Agreements elsewhere can also contribute to advancement in the region as a whole.

I believe that there is a fundamentally positive attitude from the European Union towards eventual membership of the Balkan states in the EU. It's a question of performance, but not a question of principle. The EU's engagement with and probable enlargement to each of these countries is a question of timing.

If you look at all these things, I think this is an opportunity to see the Balkan region finally come out of the '90s, a turbulent period of ethnic conflict. It should be part of the 21^st century and fully join the transatlantic community, where states and institutions are based on a democratic system, market economics, rule of law and respect of human rights. These countries, once they are ready, should be able to take up their rightful place in Western and European institutions.

The second critical opportunity I want to highlight is the chance to produce a new, united international approach to tackling the issue of climate change -- an issue that has produced heated disagreements between the two sides of the Atlantic, no pun intended. Europe has called on America to show greater leadership on this issue, and we are.

What we've seen from the U.S. side is President Bush's initiative, announced before the G8 Summit, to be part of a post-2012 framework on climate change, and to work towards a global goal for reduction of greenhouse gases. This is why President Bush called together the Meeting of Major Economies in Washington on September 27^th and 28^th -- a meeting at which 16 countries representing over 80 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions sat down to discuss a way forward together. If these countries can work together to agree on an approach to reducing global emissions, it can contribute to success in negotiations within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

We've also seen recognition from both Europe and the United States that our efforts will only be successful if we work with countries all over the globe. Bringing in developing countries -- such as China, India and Brazil -- to be part of the dialogue is vital for all concerned.

The next milestone is the Bali meeting of the UNFCCC in December, and the Major Economies will meet again in the New Year. We believe there should be a Major Economies Summit in mid-2008. This is a good starting point and we hope it will lead to agreement by the end of 2008 on a post-Kyoto framework, with a global goal that we all share, including the key countries in the developing world.

So I think we now have a critical opportunity to cut across some of the stale discussion -- Kyoto or not Kyoto -- and look in fact at the actual programs and policies that all our nations can and must put in place to make a real difference in greenhouse gas emissions.

We are both trying. And I think we are getting back to the point where we realize that our objectives are basically the same, and we have got to reach out more effectively to the developing world to make any solution truly global.

The third opportunity that I want to mention, and then I will stop on that, is Afghanistan, where the transatlantic community has worked together very well so far. We have the EU contributing additional police and the training of Afghan police. We have substantial reconstruction and development assistance from the EU and from European countries, as well as a very large commitment from the U.S., about $14 billion thus far. We have all members of NATO contributing in the ISAF security operation.

It's easy to get distracted by the negative reports that we hear every day -- whether it is this incident here where there were significant civilian casualties, or that incident there where there were friendly-fire casualties, or that other incident where the Taliban set off an improvised explosive device or attacked a marketplace and a lot of civilians or children were wounded and killed. These are tragic incidents, to be sure. But I think it's also important to look at the big picture.

The truth is that we avoided a major Taliban offensive this spring, one everyone expected. And if we look back to 2001 and see what we have achieved, it is substantial.

Back then, in 2001, an abusive Taliban regime was still in place, imposing a very harsh version of Islam on a population that did not welcome it. Women were denied fundamental rights. For some crimes, they were stoned to death. Girls were not allowed to go to school. Monuments that had survived the onslaughts of Alexander, Ghenghis Khan and Tamerlame. were being defaced and blown up. It was a very dark time.

While there's a very long way to go in Afghanistan and a lot of challenges today, we should take account of the progress made and feel a measure of accomplishment.

Afghanistan's economy is today three times the size that it was in 2001. There is a constitution and there is an elected government. There is governance that touches Afghans throughout the country. Kids are back in schools, nearly 6 million kids, and over a million and a half of those are girls. Under the Taliban, zero girls were allowed to attend school. In 2001, only 8 percent of the population had access to medical care. Now it is over 65 percent. Back then, there were only 50 kilometers of paved roads. Now it is over 7000, with more due for completion this year. There is a commitment in the international community to support the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan. This is a lot to build on.

I think we did well at the beginning of this year to get ahead of the Taliban so that there wasn't a military offensive on their part. Instead, increased our force presence and operations, and had a diplomatic, financial, reconstruction and development offensive of our own.

Having come this far, I don't think we should look at Afghanistan as a crisis or failure. Rather, I think that we should look ahead and think, "How do we strengthen the Afghan government, support its institutions, and build on the security and the reconstruction we advanced thus far?" And I believe that by working together as a transatlantic community to support the Afghan government, we have a real opportunity for further critical advances in the coming year. And the Afghan people are depending on it.

I've just given you three examples of tough problems that the U.S. and Europe are tackling together.

• Kosovo, a place we liberated together, freed from the ethnic cleansing of Milosevic, and where we are now trying to reach a stable, long-term solution. 
  
  
• Climate change, an issue that once separated us, but that we hope will bring us back together as we search for a post 2012 framework. 
  
  
•  And Afghanistan, another country we liberated from a tyrannical regime, whose people we owe solidarity. 

Those are three examples of issues that can't wait, and opportunities where I believe concerted efforts by the transatlantic community in the coming year can make a real difference. I could go through a longer list, but I will pause there. The period one not to be defined by lame-duck-ism and drift, but rather one filled with opportunities to work together.

Thank you very much for having me. I would be delighted to answer a question or two and then offer a comment.