Briefing by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond on National Adoption Day

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

November 20, 2009

MR. TONER: Good afternoon. It’s my great pleasure to introduce Deputy Assistant Secretary Michele Bond, who has been our Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Directorate for Overseas Citizens Services since July 2007. Previously, she was the Director of the Office of Policy Coordination and Public Outreach in the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, and she’s also served as the managing director of the Office of Overseas Citizens Services, so she brings a wealth of experience to her job.

And today, in light of National Adoption Day tomorrow, we thought it a good opportunity to have her come down and give us an update on some of the activities of our embassies vis-à-vis adoption services. So with that, I’ll introduce Deputy Assistant Secretary Bond. Thank you.

MS. BOND: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. As the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizens Services in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, I am really happy to be here this afternoon to celebrate the fact that November is National Adoption Month. There are hundreds of Department of State employees who adoptive parents, foster parents, or adult adoptees. So this is an important and personal issue for State Department staff.

More officially, the Department is the U.S. central authority for The Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption, and is deeply committed to promoting and facilitating adoption as a permanent, loving alternative for children who cannot remain in their birth families.

As mentioned, tomorrow, November 21, is National Adoption Day. The day is being marked around the United States at courthouses where hundreds of children in foster care will have their adoptions finalized. Many U.S. embassies around the world are also celebrating National Adoption Month through their own outreach activities that emphasize the importance that the United States attaches to adoption and especially to inter-country adoption.

Here at the State Department, we continue to work with other countries to develop and implement standards and procedures to help ensure that as many children as possible can find permanent, loving homes. We believe that inter-country adoption can be an important option for children in need, and that every child deserves a loving home.

In April 2008, the United States joined more than 75 other nations as a party to The Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption. It’s a fundamental tenant of the convention that when a child cannot be reintegrated into his or her birth family, the first option should be adoption by a family in that child’s country of origin. When that domestic adoption in the child’s country of origin is not possible, then inter-country adoption opens another opportunity for a child to find the loving home that he or she deserves.

The United States is committed to ensuring that all inter-country adoptions to the United States or from the United States protect each child’s fundamental rights and prevent the abduction, sale, or trafficking of children. We also encourage all countries to take the necessary steps to join and implement The Hague Inter-Country Adoption Convention. Since the convention entered into force for the United States, nearly 900 children have been adopted both into and out of the United States in accordance with Hague Convention procedures. Several thousand additional children have been adopted under non-Hague procedures because their cases had begun before The Hague went into force for us.

Several Hague partners have contacted our office here at the Department to discuss the interest of their citizens in adopting waiting children in U.S. foster care, an option we strongly endorse for those who have not found permanent homes in the United States. In Fiscal Year 2009, almost 13,000 foreign-born children were adopted by U.S. Citizen families. More than 70,000 domestic adoptions were completed in the United States during the same period. Adoption is more common in the United States than in any other country, and we adopt more foreign-born children than the rest of the world combined. Those are facts that we can all be proud of.

No matter where or in what circumstances children are born, they deserve the opportunity to grow up in a loving family. The Department of State is proud to be part of National Adoption Month and to add our own recognition and thanks to all of the families that have opened their hearts and homes through adoption. Thank you.

Questions? Sir.

QUESTION: Charley Keyes from CNN. You and I have talked in the past. What are some of the remaining problem countries in regard to U.S. adoptions? I know that the United States has voiced concerns in the past about China. Can you just bring us up to date on that?

MS. BOND: All right, yes. To talk about China, which I would not call a problem country as far as adoptions are concerned, but I certainly can talk about that a little bit – in Fiscal Year 2009, just over 3,000 children were adopted from China to the United States. China --

QUESTION: Is that the largest number among –

MS. BOND: No, that’s down a little bit from – oh, you mean the largest among all – I think it probably was the largest for that year, yeah.

QUESTION: So the largest among all countries?

MS. BOND: That’s right. China is a party to The Hague Adoption Convention and has been for some time, and so all adoptions now starting between China and the United States have to be under Hague procedures. The U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou estimates that it takes about 38 months to complete an adoption absent special circumstances. It is possible to complete an adoption more rapidly if the child who is being adopted has been identified as a special needs child.

Normally, the children, when they are adopted, are not 38 months old or older. It takes that long for the adopting family to complete the arrangements, but that doesn’t mean that the child they’re adopting was already born at the time they began the procedure. A growing number of the children now available for inter-country adoption from China are being adopted through what’s called the Waiting Child Program. They are kids who are older or they have special needs. And many American families are now pursuing this option.

QUESTION: Is the United States satisfied, though, that the incidents in China where some public officials were arrested for dealing in illegally obtained infants, that that’s been resolved to the United States satisfaction?

MS. BOND: Well, what we see is that the Chinese who have taken it very seriously are investigating, are proceeding to file charges and prosecute. The situations where we get very concerned around the world are when we can see that there’s clear evidence of a problem, and the country where it’s occurring is not taking that problem seriously – not investigating, not prosecuting. That would be a matter of concern, and that’s not the case in China.

QUESTION: Where might it be the case?

MS. BOND: Well, for example, in September of 2008, we allowed a bilateral agreement with Vietnam to expire because of our own concerns that there were very clear evidence of corruption and of bad paperwork, of falsification of children’s identities and backgrounds in order to make them available for adoption. And we couldn’t resolve the questions that were raised without the cooperation of Vietnamese officials, and we weren’t getting that cooperation.

QUESTION: And where does that stand – sorry, just one more – where does that stand now with Vietnam?

MS. BOND: At present, Vietnam has drafted a new adoption law that is being considered by their parliament. We’ve had an opportunity to talk to them and still have another – other countries that adopt from Vietnam. There’s a lot of interest in working with Vietnam to improve their procedures. And so what we see right now in Vietnam is the government moving in a very good direction, and doing so very seriously. It will, however, be quite some time before Vietnam has and has implemented a new and good adoption program.

I think you were first and then --

QUESTION: Thank you. Is there a different category as far as the adoption program concerned from India to the U.S., or are there any cases of – because I heard in the past that the – it is very difficult – somebody to bring – as far as adoption is concerned. Or is there some kind of criteria, how old one should be for adoption?

MS. BOND: The question has to do with adoptions from India. And we are working very closely with the Indian authorities to make sure that those adoptions that occur are taking place in full conformity with our law and Indian law. I think some of the problems that have come up have been when American citizens of Indian origin adopt in India, and without realizing that they shouldn’t, they sometimes adopt as Indian citizens instead of as Americans as foreigners.

And they – that procedure is different from the procedures for foreign citizens adopting Indian children. And because of various steps that they take, none of them meant to be wrong, they can sometimes find themselves in a situation where it’s very hard to process the paperwork for the child to come to the United States. So we’ve been working with Indian authorities to try to make sure that courts know that they can’t process as a local domestic adoption a situation where the child is intending to come to the United States and live here.

QUESTION: But as far as somebody in the U.S., whether it’s a U.S. Citizen or green card holder, it’s the same rules or it’s only U.S. Citizen can --

MS. BOND: You have to be a United States Citizen to adopt a foreign-born child and bring that child to the United States and --

QUESTION: And finally – and – I’m sorry --

MS. BOND: No, fine.

QUESTION: Finally, any age limit, how old one should be to – for adoption?

MS. BOND: Well, those rules are set by individual countries, and I don’t know offhand, although I can – I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to our excellent website, adoption.state.gov, which gives a great deal of information, including country-specific information of the type that you were asking.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. BOND: You had one in --

QUESTION: Yeah. Which countries do you see the sharpest increase in children ready for adoption? Is it related to conflict or poverty such as Zimbabwe?

MS. BOND: Well, the – one country that I could point to that had a sharp increase this year is Ethiopia, where the numbers that – it was up about 30 percent, and let me just – the – it was just over 2,200 children who were adopted this year from Ethiopia. That is not related to conflict. By and large, conflict is not one of the issues that tends to lead to a spike in adoptions, because children may be separated from their families but haven’t necessarily permanently lost those families as a result of population movements.

So we are watching adoptions and examining the situation in Ethiopia very carefully, because it’s a very serious concern when you – if you see the number of adoptions start to increase sharply, you want to be sure that the infrastructure if that country is equipped to monitor and carefully vet every one of those cases. Rapid growth isn’t necessarily a good thing.

QUESTION: You are mentioning experiences from other continents. How is the experience here in the Western Hemisphere between Latin American countries and the U.S.?

MS. BOND: When the United States joined The Hague Convention in April 2008, that made us a Hague partner for quite a few countries which prefer to limit their adoption interchanges with fellow – to fellow Hague countries. So there are some countries where we – American are now eligible to adopt that they might not have been before. And developing those contacts and those relationships is not something, again, that happens overnight. But I think that we may see a shift in some countries of more interest in looking for homes for children in the United States if they haven’t been able to have them adopted locally.

More generally, we have Guatemala, which is a country in which new adoptions cannot begin at this point. Guatemala is a Hague country and they are working to establish Hague-compliant procedures --

QUESTION: In Mexico?

MS. BOND: Mexico is a country where there are surprisingly few adoptions to the United States, and that is – it’s surprising in the sense that we have – we share such a long border. But there is a pretty strong reluctance in Mexico to allow children to be adopted by foreign families, even Mexican American families. And so by and large, the majority of the adoptions that we see are intra-family adoptions, not adoptions by people who are unrelated to the child.

QUESTION: On Ethiopia, you’re not entirely clear what’s causing the spike of adoptions?

MS. BOND: Well, I think what’s causing the spike of adoptions is that there are, first of all, many children in the country who are homeless and/or living in institutions and need homes. And there are people who are working to try to identify those children and match them with people in the United States and in other countries who are interested in adoption. Our concern about it is that you can easily find yourself in a situation where it’s difficult to tell the difference between children who genuinely don’t have a family and those who have been documented to look like they don’t.

And unless you have the host government with – well equipped to investigate itself, to document, to lock in the identity of these children, then it can be very hard to prevent the missed documentation of children, and situations where, for example, birth parents are coerced or persuaded to relinquish their children for money or not, but – when it’s something that they wouldn’t have considered doing if someone hadn’t been pressuring them to do it. Obviously, that’s not something that we want.

QUESTION: So there are some suspicions maybe that there’s a racket going on or –

MS. BOND: It’s something that the Ethiopian Government is carefully looking at and so are we and so is every other government whose citizens are adopting there. Ukraine, as it happens, is another country where we saw a 30 percent increase in adoptions last year. In the case of Ukraine, however, that’s not – it’s not something that we see as a trend. The numbers tend to go up and down a bit. So it can be hard to know whether you’re definitely seeing a movement in one direction or the other.

QUESTION: Let me just follow on quickly, if you don’t mind, please. What we want to know clearly, not just from one particular country (inaudible), let’s say from around the globe. As far as criteria for – like it’s a conflict or poverty or what causes or brings those children for adoption basically to the U.S.? Is it the regional conflicts? You are saying (inaudible) or elsewhere, war or homeless or the parents are dying and that – I mean, what are the major causes of the adoption of people (inaudible) of people, or children coming here?

MS. BOND: All right. The question is what are the typical reasons that children are placed for inter-country adoption. And when you talk about countries around the world, including the United States, which also has children that are adopted by foreign families and leave here to go and live in a foreign country --

QUESTION: Yeah. I’m sorry, let’s say India or let’s say sometimes they say – they seek asylum. What’s the difference between asylums or other adoption for children, let’s say? Are there children also in that category or for --

MS. BOND: Okay. Let me get to that question in a moment, if I may. The reasons that children are available for adoption by foreign citizens vary in different countries. In China, typically the reason has been that there were children, little girls, who were born and placed for adoption by families who were hoping that they might have a son.

And the fact is that – there was a reference in one question to age requirements and other requirements being imposed on adopting parents – the number of children available for adoption in China has diminished. And the number of people who are interested in adopting in China is much higher than the number of children that are – that need homes. And that’s one reason that the Chinese Government imposed the changes and the requirements for adopting parents. They were simply trying to reduce the pool of all well-qualified people who were applying to adopt. They had many more than they could vet and many more than they needed.

In some other countries, the children are in care because of local poverty. But what’s important is that in some countries, children may be placed in institutions by their families because the families know that’s a place where the children will be fed and cared for and educated. And there are countries where the families then anticipate that the children will return home when they’re a little bit older, maybe 10 or 12, old enough to contribute to the family and help their parents.

And so that’s one of the things that we have to be on guard against. The fact that a child is in an orphanage and has been there for some time doesn’t make him an orphan in the sense – well, in any sense, he’s not a child who needs a home. He has a family.

I think – I hope that that’s helpful in terms of the --

QUESTION: Yeah, only about asylum, if – if you had any case of the child or somebody had asked asylum for a child rather than adoption.

MS. BOND: The question is about whether children also come into the United States as asylees, as people who are seeking asylum from our government as opposed to adoption. Getting asylum is a very different sort of process. And in order to apply for asylum, a person has to show that he is facing some sort of persecution or threat in his own country. Typically, unaccompanied children would not be likely to apply for asylum. That would be rare.

MR. TONER: We have time for just one more question.

QUESTION: Can I just ask very quickly for you to speak in a little more detail about your comment that some other countries are approaching the United States about adopting American children? Who are those countries and how many American kids are adopted overseas?

MS. BOND: Since we joined The Hague, so since April of 2008, there are 71 American children who have been adopted by foreign families. Thirty-seven of those were adopted under The Hague, so that means that they were adopted to Hague partner countries and the adoption began after April 1, 2008 – the work on it, because as you know, it takes months to complete these things. So we’re still at a stage where the majority of outgoing adoptions are non-Hague, but we anticipate that they’re going to be primarily Hague.

The typical countries – Canada, Western Europe, Australia, countries that are our Hague partners and where local adoption opportunities are very limited, they’re very – relatively few children available for adoption. To their credit, several of the governments that have approached us have said that they are particularly interested in identifying waiting children in foster care as candidates for adoption by their citizens. They are not trying to compete for healthy newborn infants.

MR. TONER: Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

A New Era in U.S.-Indian Partnership

William J. Burns
Under Secretary for Political Affairs 

Remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Event

Washington, DC

November 18, 2009

Thank you very much George for that kind introduction. It’s an honor to speak once again at the Carnegie Endowment, an institution for which I have enormous admiration. And it’s a pleasure to speak about a subject, the growing partnership between the United States and India, to which the Obama Administration attaches enormous importance.

Diplomats have a well-deserved reputation for being long-winded. But I’ll try to break that stereotype this morning, and offer just a few brief thoughts to help frame the panel discussion that you’re about to have. I should also mention at the outset that I owe a personal debt of gratitude to three of your panelists, Ashley Tellis, Evan Feigenbaum, and Tezi Schaffer, friends and former colleagues who have made remarkable contributions over the years to U.S.-Indian relations, and to the opportunities emerging before us in this new era. Neither Ashley nor Evan nor Tezi has ever been shy about correcting my mistakes in the past, and I can’t imagine that their departure from government service has made them any more reticent today.

It is no coincidence that the first state visit in the Obama Presidency will come from India, and Prime Minister Singh will arrive in Washington next week at a moment of great opportunity. Few relationships will matter more to the course of human events in the 21st century than the partnership between India and the United States. India, as all of you know very well, is a rising global power, soon to be the world’s most populous country, with a trillion dollar-plus economy. The world’s largest democracy, India is a powerful model for other emerging democracies, a model of tolerance and of strength in diversity.

India has an increasingly significant role to play on virtually all of the major challenges of this new century -- from global economic dislocation to energy security, climate change, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and violent extremism. Its role in Asia, already significant, will only grow in the years ahead, and India will be an increasingly valuable partner in the historic effort to, as President Obama put it, “cultivate spheres of cooperation” throughout Asia. A rising India is an essential part of the peaceful and prosperous world that the United States seeks in the 21st century, and our partnership is an essential ingredient for success.

As we look ahead to the visit of Prime Minister Singh, and to the possibilities for expanded partnership which lie before us, let me first recall quickly how we got to this promising moment.

A Strong Foundation

The truth is that we’ve come a very long way together over the past decade and a half. In a speech last June, Secretary Clinton described three phases in our relations. The first phase – or U.S.-India 1.0 – lasted from India’s founding to the end of the Cold War, and was generally characterized by missed opportunities, the result of mistrust and old conflicts between East and West, North and South.

The 2.0 chapter opened in the Clinton Administration, and included President Clinton’s landmark visit to India in the year 2000. The Bush Administration built very effectively on that foundation, culminating in completion of the civil nuclear initiative last year. That would not have happened without bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress, including from three Senators named Obama, Biden and Clinton. The signing of the civil nuclear deal turned a source of friction between our two countries into opportunities for cooperation in trade and job creation, helping India to meet its growing energy needs, and opening up possibilities to work together to strengthen the global nonproliferation regime.

Meanwhile, ties between our two societies have continued to grow. Today there are close to three million Indian-Americans in the United States, who serve as a critical bridge between our countries. More than 100,000 Indian students attend schools and universities in the United States each year, more than from any other country. Our Embassy and consulates in India issue over 50% of all specialized employee visas in the world. Our private sectors are linked by steadily mounting trade flows, which have doubled since 2004 and now exceed $43 billion each year.

Strengthening our Partnership

All of this gives us a very strong foundation on which to build in the years ahead – U.S.-India 3.0. President Obama captured eloquently our sense of what’s possible when he said recently: “Our rapidly growing and deepening friendship with India offers benefits to all the world's citizens as our scientists solve environmental challenges together, our doctors discover new medicines, our engineers advance our societies, our entrepreneurs generate prosperity, our educators lay the foundation for our future generations, and our governments work together to advance peace, prosperity, and stability around the globe.”

When Secretary Clinton visited India last July, she and Minister Krishna launched a new Strategic Dialogue to develop our cooperation systematically, across a wide range of issues. Let me highlight a few of them, which are likely to figure prominently in Prime Minister Singh’s visit and in our emerging partnership over the next few years.

Global Security

The first pillar of our Strategic Dialogue, and of our expanding partnership, is cooperation on global security challenges. India and the United States share a profound interest in making the world more secure. The tragic attacks of 26/11 were a global event. The violence inflicted on the people of Mumbai, and the loss of six American citizens in those attacks, was a reminder that terrorism represents a common threat to our nations and our people, and we must meet it with a common strategy.

Over the past year our two countries have developed new mechanisms to improve the sharing of information that have helped prevent attacks and protect both our peoples. Home Minister Chidambaram’s visit to Washington last September further strengthened our collaboration in these areas and laid the initial groundwork for what we hope will become an enduring U.S.-India partnership in counter-terrorism.

Afghanistan presents another challenge on which we continue to work together. As our careful assessment of U.S. policy in Afghanistan draws to a conclusion, we will continue to actively consult India as a critical partner in achieving lasting stability there. We welcome India’s significant and positive role in Afghanistan, including the provision of over $1.2 billion in reconstruction assistance.

Of course, we all share an interest in stability and peace between India and Pakistan. We all know the stakes. America has always supported the two countries’ peace process and the resolution of outstanding disputes through dialogue. The pace, scope, and content of the peace process is for Indian and Pakistani leaders to decide. But we have welcomed renewed engagement, including this past summer between Prime Ministers Singh and Gilani, and between Prime Minister Singh and President Zardari.

As India and other nations play an expanded role in resolving international security challenges, the architecture of international institutions will need to adapt to reflect their new responsibilities. India has shown through its moral stature and long tradition of leadership among developing countries that it is well-suited to address the challenges faced by multinational institutions and constructively advance the common good. As Secretary Clinton has said, we look forward to cooperating with New Delhi as it takes on the responsibilities that come with being a global leader.

There is also significant potential in our relationship for expanded defense cooperation. As India modernizes its military, American equipment and technology can and should be a part of that modernization. The recent conclusion of an End-Use Monitoring accord gives us important momentum to enhance our security relationship.

As everyone in this room knows, nuclear nonproliferation is a very high priority for President Obama, and we look to India as a full partner in efforts to strengthen the nonproliferation regime and prevent the further spread of weapons of mass destruction. Prime Minister Singh’s public support for the goals of the President’s Prague agenda was a welcome sign. The Prime Minister’s Special Envoy, Shyam Saran, added not long ago that the Civil Nuclear Initiative has enabled India to look “proactively and not defensively at a new global agenda for nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament.” True to the spirit of those statements, during the past year India has brought into force its Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and signed its Additional Protocol.

The United States remains firmly committed to implementing fully the Civil Nuclear Initiative; we welcomed the recent naming of two reactor park sites for U.S. nuclear firms, and we look forward to the completion of other steps, on both sides, that will make civil nuclear cooperation a reality between our two countries. U.S. firms stand to benefit a great deal from the implementation of the 123 agreement, a process that should also create thousands of new jobs for Indians and Americans. That leads me to a second pillar of our relationship with significant potential for further expansion, our economic ties.

Economic Growth

Since India’s sweeping liberalization of the early 1990s, whose chief architect is now India’s Prime Minister, economic cooperation has always been a driver of progress between our two countries. Today is no different. India has weathered the global economic downturn better than most, with growth projected at more than 6% this year. Such growth can be a stabilizing force within the global economy when other economies are stagnating. We appreciate the leadership role that India has played in the G20 and look forward to an expanded role for India as the international economic architecture adapts to new challenges and new realities.

India’s growing workforce, with the largest pool of English speakers and ambitious young entrepreneurs in the world, presents another immense opportunity for India and its partners to capitalize on globalization. We’ve been negotiating bilateral trade frameworks with India with the aim of bolstering our commercial activity in areas such as infrastructure, health care services, information, communications technology, and education services. As India continues to enhance its business climate, I’m confident that more American companies will be drawn to its dynamic market.

We’re also trying to leverage the private sector by re-launching a CEO Forum of top American and Indian business leaders during the Prime Minister’s visit. Our hope is that the Forum will inform the choices of government leaders, as it has in the past, and thereby enhance our joint competitiveness and ingenuity. The CEO Forum can also complement our work in industries and disciplines where private sector interests play a prime role in both countries – in education, science and technology, and on the full range of global economic policy issues facing us. We need to harness their creativity to find new solutions for sustained economic growth, which will greatly depend on the move away from old fossil-fuel development to more low carbon, energy efficient alternatives.

Clean Energy and Climate Change

Development of clean energy and the contributions it can make to climate change have been a third area of cooperation that we have pursued intensively over the past several months. Much has been made of differences in Indian and American positions leading up to the Copenhagen Conference. While those differences are real, we are working in the spirit of our partnership toward a successful outcome at Copenhagen.

At the same time that we develop common ground in complicated multilateral negotiations, we are pursuing bilateral and regional cooperation on a range of green initiatives that draw on our joint scientific and technological resources. These initiatives include work in solar and wind energy, second generation biofuels, forestry management, and on a range of energy efficiency initiatives. We are also exploring a joint clean energy research center to foster innovation and accelerate deployment of clean energy technologies.

At a practical level, Indian and American scientists work together on a daily basis to enhance India’s capabilities to generate clean energy. In solar and wind power, our National Renewable Energy Laboratory exchanges data and cutting-edge research with counterpart centers in India. We also want to help India meet its National Solar Mission target of producing 20 gigawatts of solar power by 2020. Given the magnitude of capital investment it takes to reach even the first solar gigawatt, we hope work with the private sector will make investments less risky in the short-run. On the adaptation side, our National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is helping India’s Ministry of Earth Sciences to more accurately forecast monsoons, and thereby reduce risks associated with climate change and to protect people and crops from the adverse effects of extreme weather.

Agriculture, Science and Technology

Just as a new green initiative in clean and renewable energy can benefit both our countries in the years ahead, so too can renewed cooperation in agriculture contribute to a second green revolution in Indian food production. And just as the United States was proud to play a role in the first green revolution, through the good work of the late Norman Borlaug and many committed Indians and Americans, so too are we ready to join our Indian partners to help expand India’s agricultural sector for a new era.

Secretary Vilsack and his counterpart Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia will meet next week to discuss the future launch of a ministerial-level Agriculture Dialogue, which will include a strong private sector component. On a global level, we see India as an important partner in helping to spur agricultural revolutions beyond South Asia to Africa and other parts of the world where food security remains a serious and persistent problem.

Our long-standing scientific collaboration extends beyond agriculture to other areas such as health, where our best scientists, innovators, and labs are coming together to share knowledge and find breakthroughs on some of our toughest challenges. We’re working together in a number of areas, including research in HIV/AIDs, detection of emerging infectious diseases, and maternal and child health. Such initiatives are critical to saving lives and resources, and strengthening human development in India, which brings me to the fifth and final area of cooperation that I’ll highlight today.

Education and Human Development

Education and human development, including women’s empowerment, are important platforms for both our countries to invest in our greatest asset – our people. In the 1960s, educators and institution builders from our two countries collaborated in the establishment of the Indian Institutes of Technology. Today, Indian leaders are once again grappling with how to best position their university system to prepare an ambitious workforce for the demands of a changing global economy. We are hopeful that part of the Indian education system’s evolution will bring about closer collaboration with American universities.

We welcomed Indian Education Minister Kapil Sibal’s visit to a number of top U.S. universities last month. As a reflection of Indian interest in further cooperation between our institutions, over 30 Indian university leaders accompanied the Minister. There is equal, enthusiastic interest among American university leaders in establishing lasting university-to-university partnerships. The U.S. and Indian governments have tried to do their part, too. We nearly doubled the Fulbright-Nehru program of academic exchanges this past year, and hope to expand opportunities in higher education in the near future.

Of course, we’re committed to working with India to improve all levels of education, to boost literacy and expand vocational training. I had the privilege last summer in Mumbai to visit a visionary NGO involved in this work, Teach for India, and I found a spirit of volunteerism that underpins much of the incredible social work that goes on around the country. It was a further reminder that both our relationship and India’s progress are rooted in the dynamism of the Indian people.

Our programs pay particular attention to women. The United States can learn a great deal from India’s examples of a woman president, a woman leader of the nation’s largest political party, and more women in parliament than ever before. Beyond politics, women are making important contributions to all areas of human endeavor, from education to the arts to science and technology. But more work needs to be done to empower the disenfranchised and the marginalized. Our Ambassador-at-large for Global Women’s Issues, Melanne Verveer, was in India last week to launch our dialogue on Women’s Empowerment, and I know she found her engagement with entrepreneurs, activists, educators and policymakers quite productive.

Conclusion

From counterterrorism to nonproliferation, education and agriculture, science and technology and women’s empowerment, our cooperation reflects the depth and breadth of the relationship between the world’s two largest democracies. It also illustrates the deep connections not just between our governments, but more importantly, between our societies and our people.

Let me conclude with a simple observation. Few relationships around the world matter more to our collective future, or hold greater promise for constructive action on the challenges that matter most to all of us, than the partnership between the United States and India. That doesn’t mean that we will always agree, because we won’t. That doesn’t mean that we can always avoid mutual suspicions or misunderstandings, because we can’t. But together we can build, on the solid foundation that already exists, an even stronger partnership that serves not only the interests of our two countries, but of the rest of the international community.

That is the sense of possibility that awaits Prime Minister Singh in Washington next week. And that is the sense of possibility that the Obama Administration is determined to make an enduring reality in the new era unfolding before us.

Thank you very much.

Fighting Networks with Networks: Partnership and Shared Responsibility on Combating Transnational Crime

David T. Johnson
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

Keynote Address at the Trans-Pacific Symposium on Dismantling Transnational Illicit Networks

Honolulu, Hawaii

November 10, 2009

Aloha!

Thank you U.S. Attorney Florence Nakakuni (District of Hawaii) for your service and commitment on behalf of the issues that have brought us together in this setting.

Your Excellencies, Secretary General Noble (Interpol), Assistant Secretary Alikhan (DHS Policy Development), Director General Soh (Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau of Singapore), distinguished delegates, on behalf of President Barack Obama and Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton and the U.S. Department of State, we welcome you and applaud your participation at this important conference.

I would also like to thank U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and our international partners, for their leadership in helping to organize this symposium.

Let me take a moment and also recognize the U.S Pacific Command (PACOM) and the Joint Interagency Task Force –West (JIATF-W) for their extraordinary efforts in combating many of today’s transnational threats across the Pacific, and for working with committed partners to preserve the security, stability, and freedom upon which enduring prosperity in the region depends. I would like to applaud the leadership of both Admiral Willard and Rear Admiral Ratti for their efforts to work with the international community to confront the security challenges in the Asia Pacific region.

The Growing Threat Posed by Transnational Illicit Networks

We meet to confront security threats that until relatively recently, would not have ranked high on the international community’s foreign policy agenda. Threats such as international arms and narcotics trafficking, transnational organized crime, and terrorism have taken front stage, and we often see a convergence of these threats. The international community has acted to deal with these threats, and we will make further proposals to explore them over the coming days.

Illicit activities of violent criminal networks increasingly cross borders and impact our mutual security and economic health. Enterprising illicit actors are smuggling billions of dollars of illegal goods into our jurisdictions – from trafficking in drugs, guns, and humans, to smuggling counterfeit medicines and pirated software –costing our economies jobs and tax revenue and endangering the welfare and safety of our families and communities.

President Obama supports making the fight against transnational crime, corruption, and illicit threats a priority in our regional security cooperation. As President Obama has noted in his message to delegates at this symposium, we are indeed experiencing a “dangerous convergence of transnational threats”. Let me read the President’s full message:

<President Barack Obama’s Message to Symposium Delegates is read>

Threat Convergence and the Destabilizing Impact of Bi-Directional East-West Illicit Flows to Regional Prosperity

All economies are dependent upon global trade and a consistent, rules-based trade regime. Around the world, however, the global markets and financial systems are being undermined by transnational organized crime. This in turn weakens the rule of law, democracy, and economic development efforts globally.

In some regions such as South America, Central America, and Southeast Asia, converging criminal networks are directly cooperating with each other to advance their illicit enterprises. In what has been referred to as the crime-terror nexus, international crime networks provide specialized services to terrorists – such as weapons or facilitating illicit travel – in exchange for payment. The interwoven strands of criminal transactions make it nearly impossible to target these threats in isolation.

A more direct threat – and one that probably all communities in all of our jurisdictions face to some degree –is the destructive operations of drug trafficking organizations. Transnational drug enterprises are just that – enterprises. Like legitimate businesses, they are constantly in search of higher profits and new business opportunities and they are closely linked to other transnational crime groups.

Perhaps the most worrying feature of the transnational drug traffickers is the speed with which they have adapted to today’s globalized economy. They are cutting-edge organizations – sophisticated, well-funded, committed, and violent. Their weapons and other equipment – communications, encryption, and surveillance – are often better than the equipment available to law enforcement officials charged with bringing them to justice. These criminal groups also are increasingly expert at seeking out safe-havens where they can live and operate without interference from the law, effectively co-opting the host government.

Of course, the cross-border threats we are discussing this week in Honolulu do not nicely stay confined to the borders in our regions. The threats and illicit networks we are discussing also transit to Europe, Africa, and other parts of the world.

There is growing concern that Mexican cartels have branched out and are now operating in parts of Asia and on the ground in West Africa. Similarly, Asian organized criminal groups are increasing their operations in Central America and other parts of the world. Law enforcement remains weak in some jurisdictions, while others offer safe havens where traffickers can operate with impunity.

Leveling the Playing Field: Global Partnerships

Fighting transnational crime and dismantling illicit networks is not something that any one government can do alone. We must work together closely at the bilateral, sub-regional, regional and global level.

For many years the United States has partnered with the Government of Colombia to disrupt cocaine operations, and restore public security and rule of law. And throughout the region the US has provided support to strengthen the ability of both source and transit countries to investigate and prosecute major drug trafficking organizations.

The United States has developed an innovative new partnership with the Governments of Mexico, the Central American countries, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic under the Merida Initiative. The aim of the Merida Initiative is to enable greater cooperation between law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and judges as they share best practices and expand bilateral cooperation in tracking criminals, drugs, arms, and money. Numerous U.S. Government agencies – many who are here with us today – cooperate to support this initiative, including the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, the Department of The Treasury, and the Department of Defense.

In Asia, we are working with partner governments to combat numerous transnational threats as well. We are working collaboratively with the Indonesian government to help develop effective, democratic, civilian-led and skilled law enforcement and justice sector institutions. We work closely with the Indonesian National Police building capacity in combating maritime threats, responding to natural disasters and emergencies, and disrupting cross-border trafficking of illicit goods. We have also partnered with the Attorney General’s Office to build capacity for prosecuting cases related to terrorism, corruption, and environmental crimes.

In the Philippines, we have trained thousands of police, including in the conflict-affected region of Mindanao, where effective civilian law enforcement capability is a key effort in alleviating the root causes of insurgency. We have worked with the Philippine National Police to create ten model police stations across the country and to improve the maritime police capabilities in Palawan. We have just begun the second iteration of this program, which will create one model police station in each of the country’s seventeen administrative regions. We also support rule of law programs in the Philippines and Timor Leste that build judicial capacity to prosecute transnational crimes and fight corruption. And in mainland Southeast Asia, we work closely with the Thai and Lao governments to improve law enforcement cooperation and reduce the demand for illicit drugs.

The State Department supports a comprehensive range of bilateral, regional, and global initiatives and assistance programs to build up the law enforcement capacity of foreign governments so they can confront these threats. This includes enabling foreign governments to strike directly at trafficking organizations by disrupting their operations, arresting and imprisoning their leaders, and seizing their assets. It also includes destroying drug crops at their source and helping wean growers away from drug farming through alternative livelihood and more general economic development.

My Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement works to enhance international cooperation and coordination among states. We coordinate with international organizations and groups, such as the United Nations, APEC, ASEAN, the Organization of American States (OAS), the G-8, the European Union, INTERPOL, and the Financial Action Task Force and its regional sub-groups, and with foreign governments to set international counterdrug and anti-crime standards, close off safe-havens to criminal groups, pool skills and resources, and improve cross-border cooperation.

Within the past decade, our countries, working together, have succeeded in globalizing the fight against transnational organized crime, as well as the fight against corruption which undermines governmental institutions and societies and spans the range of national and intergovernmental endeavors. The UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and its Protocols, which for the first time require criminalization of a broad range of activities by crime groups, and the UN Convention against Corruption, which requires the criminalization of bribery and other corrupt conduct and the taking of preventive measures, also establish a broad, near global framework for intergovernmental legal cooperation.

These instruments have already been used numerous times by governments to enable and facilitate extraditions and mutual legal assistance to reduce the advantage to organized crime gains by operating across borders. Our region should lead the way in ratifications and accessions. By fully implementing both the UNTOC and the UNCAC, jurisdictions will demonstrate that they are committed to staying ahead of the criminals by utilizing the incredible breadth of these Conventions, and to help strengthen and facilitate international cooperation on extradition, mutual legal assistance, transfer of sentenced persons, joint investigations and special investigative techniques.

The Way Forward: Unity of Effort

Let’s be clear. Today, we face enormous challenges in countering the increasing power of transnational drug and crime groups that are threatening our communities. As Secretary Clinton has underscored on numerous occasions, no economy alone can combat today’s transnational threats.

The problem is too large for any one of our governments. Rather it will require that we and other governments work together closely at the bilateral, sub-regional, regional and global level.

Together, the United States joins our partners across the Pacific, and globally, to take the fight directly to these threats, dismantle their networks, unravel the illicit financial nodes that sustain a web of criminality and corruption, develop strong law enforcement and security multi-disciplinary threat mitigation capabilities, and enhance our cooperation through public-private partnerships.

The United States is committed to working with your governments, and our international partners, to meet this challenge.

Enjoy the Conference and the rest of your stay in lovely Hawaii.

Thank you.

America and the Middle East in a New Era

William J. Burns
Under Secretary for Political Affairs 

Remarks to the Middle East Institute

Washington, DC

November 10, 2009

Thank you very much Wendy for that kind introduction. And thank you for this opportunity to speak again at the Middle East Institute, for whose leadership, membership and mission I have enormous respect.

There are a lot of different strategies for appearing before a group as formidable and well-informed as all of you are. Mark Twain, I’m told, had a simple approach: “It is my custom,” he said,” to keep talking until I have my audience cowed.”

Another of my favorite authors, George Bernard Shaw, was an advocate of a less long-winded strategy. Hosting an event in London one day, Shaw was approached by the first speaker, who asked how long he should speak for. Shaw replied that he should probably limit his remarks to about 20 minutes. The speaker looked at him in horror and said: “Twenty minutes! How am I supposed to tell them everything I know in twenty minutes ?” Shaw paused and replied: “In your case, my advice would be to speak very slowly.”

In my case, you don’t have to worry about me going much beyond 20 minutes, even if I speak very slowly. So I’ll spare you Mark Twain’s strategy, try my best to emulate George Bernard Shaw, and offer only a few brief thoughts on America and the Middle East in the new era unfolding before us.

In my checkered career as an American diplomat, I have divided my labors mostly between two nice, boring areas: the Middle East and Russia. Given my extraordinary track record of achievement in those two areas, you should probably be worried about where they might send me next. But in the course of my professional efforts, I have learned a few things, sometimes the hard way, about America and the Middle East.

I have certainly learned that we do not have the luxury of ignoring a part of the world that holds some of our closest friends, two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves, several of the world’s most poisonous regional conflicts, and violent extremists who feed on the region’s bitterness and alienation.

I’ve learned that a little humility goes a long way in the exercise of American power and purpose in the Middle East. We come by that humility honestly, through many trials and many errors. Winston Churchill, a life-long admirer of America, once said that the thing he liked most about Americans was that “they always did the right thing in the end … they just liked to exhaust all the alternatives first.” The latter describes much of our historical experience in the Middle East; the former is an outcome to which we always aspire.

I’ve learned that America can lead more effectively through the power of our example than through the power of our preaching. I’ve learned that other people and other societies have their own realities, not always identical or hospitable to ours. That doesn’t mean that we have to accept them or indulge them, but it does mean that understanding them is the starting point for successful policy.

I’ve learned that stability is not a static phenomenon. To borrow an analogy used by one of your very deserving award winners last night, both political systems and peace processes, like bicycles, tend to fall over if they’re not moving forward. I’ve learned that the Middle East has many good and decent people, who seek dignity and respect and a better life for their children, and a few great leaders, like the late King Hussein of Jordan, a man of uncommon courage and vision, who died shortly after I began my tenure as Ambassador in Amman more than a decade ago.

I’ve learned too that the Middle East is a region of deep discontents and powerful grievances, many of which roll to a rest, rightly or wrongly, at the doorstep of the United States.

I’ve learned that there is no substitute for determined American leadership in the Middle East, aimed squarely at addressing the problems at the core of some of those real or imagined grievances, and serving as a catalyst for making common cause with others. And I’ve learned that we must be clear not only about what we stand against, but also what we stand for.

In his speech in Cairo last June, President Obama spoke far more eloquently than I ever could about what American stands for in this new era. He called for “a new beginning … based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” We have been working hard, starting well before that historic speech, to translate the President’s compelling vision into practical policy, to begin the long, difficult process of turning rhetoric into results.

That is not easy. It never has been in the Middle East, a land where dreams are regularly shattered, where good intentions regularly run aground, and where pessimists rarely lack either company or validation. Progress means applying mutual interest in a way that builds on common ground wherever it exists, but doesn’t shy away from dealing plainly with our differences wherever it doesn’t.

It means translating mutual respect into an approach that doesn’t patronize or pretend to hold a monopoly on wisdom, that shows that listening is occasionally something other than an unnatural act for Americans – but that also shows no hesitation in speaking honestly to both our friends and our adversaries about the importance we attach to universal human rights. It means exercising our responsibility to lead, to set a good example, to help resolve regional conflicts, to help build coalitions in support of a new positive agenda. But it also means that others in the region and outside it must live up to their responsibilities, whether in upholding non-proliferation norms or taking risks for peace.

Progress is possible toward realizing the President’s vision, toward realizing a positive agenda for the Middle East. Such progress is the ultimate antidote to the fundamentally negative agenda of violent extremists, who are much better at describing what they want to destroy rather than what they want to build. America’s contribution to a positive agenda has many parts, and today I’ll highlight only a few of them. They include: building peace between Israelis and Arabs; supporting the emergence of a new Iraq, at peace with itself and its neighbors; dealing with the challenge of Iran; and building economic and political hope, in a region which for too long has known too little of either.

This is not an a la carte policy menu. We cannot successfully neglect one priority in the pursuit of others. Progress will inevitably be uneven, but it is important to connect the dots among issues, and pursue a comprehensive strategy. Let me touch briefly on each of the four priorities that I mentioned.

Building Peace Between Israelis and Arabs

If there’s one issue that should keep us humble, it is the elusive quest for Arab-Israeli peace. While not a magic solution to all the many ills of the region, no other issue cuts closer to the core of what drives emotions throughout much of the Middle East. It is a truism that the parties themselves must make the difficult decisions for peace, and it is an historical fact that most of the biggest breakthroughs, from Sadat in Jerusalem to the secret negotiations in Oslo, have come from the parties themselves. But persistent, hard-headed, day-in-and-day-out, high-level American engagement has also been a critical ingredient for success, from Henry Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy, to Jimmy Carter at Camp David, to Jim Baker on the road to Madrid.

It is exactly that realization that has animated the efforts of President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell, appointed as the President’s Special Envoy on the second day of the new Administration. Our goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security; a Jewish state of Israel, with which America retains unbreakable bonds, and with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, that ends the daily humiliations of Palestinians under occupation, and that realizes the full and remarkable potential of the Palestinian people.

Toward that end, as Secretary Clinton emphasized last week in the region, we seek to re-launch direct negotiations, without preconditions. That emphatically does not mean starting from scratch; it means building on previous agreements, resolving the core issues of the conflict, and settling it once and for all. At every step of this process, the United States will be an active and creative partner.

We seek to create the best possible circumstances for negotiations, working with the parties, working with key regional partners like Egypt, and the Quartet. We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements; we consider the Israeli offer to restrain settlement activity to be a potentially important step, but it obviously falls short of the continuing Roadmap obligation for a full settlement freeze. We seek to deepen international support for the Palestinian Authority’s impressive plan to build over the next couple years the institutions that a responsible Palestinian state requires. And we also seek progress toward peace between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon, as part of a broader peace among Israel and all of its neighbors.

I wish I could stand before you today and point to substantial progress toward those goals. I cannot. But what I can say is that the Administration’s commitment and determination are undiminished, and that we will continue to work hard to bring about the early resumption of negotiations, which is the only path to the two state solution on which so much depends, not only for the future of Israelis and Palestinians, but for the entire Middle East. Setbacks and complications are the common thread that runs through every effort at Middle East peace. We need to learn from them, but not be deterred by them. We have made limited headway – a shared understanding between the parties about a two state objective; a shared interest in moving back to the negotiating table; wide international backing for this process; steady progress, in the face of very difficult odds, toward shaping reliable Palestinian security organizations and governmental institutions in the West Bank. Now we need to bear down, move ahead, fulfill our responsibilities for leadership, and challenge every other party to fulfill theirs.

The Slow Path to a New Iraq

Let me turn quickly to a second crucial issue, Iraq. Iraqis have come a long way from the ugly sectarian violence of 2006 and 2007. But their journey remains difficult and incomplete, as they work toward the goal we all seek – a sovereign, self-reliant and stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors. Progress in Iraq is obvious on many fronts. Last Saturday, Iraq’s Council of Representatives passed a critically important elections law, paving the way for national elections in January. Prime Minister Maliki came to Washington last month to co-host an oversubscribed U.S.-Iraq business conference, which was followed by two major oil deals, a reminder of Iraq’s enormous economic potential. At the same time, however, terrorist violence is a persistent threat, a reminder of all the work still to be done. The fact that these attacks, including bloody car bombs in the heart of Baghdad, have not re-ignited sectarian conflicts or undermined the institutions of government is a testament to the will of the vast majority of Iraqis, who remain determined to build the normalcy that has so often been denied them in their tragic past.

The United States will continue to stand firmly with Iraq in this hugely important effort. We will fulfill scrupulously our security and strategic framework agreements, and have already begun the transition from a relationship focused on security issues to a civilian-led partnership increasingly based on cooperation in non-security areas, such as education, health and economic ties. Meanwhile, we continue to support Iraq’s reintegration into its neighborhood. Iraq is now an active member of the GCC Plus Three group, which brings it together with Saudi Arabia and the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, as well as Egypt and Jordan. Iraq’s ties with Turkey have improved considerably in the last two years. Just last week, Egypt and Iraq launched a strategic cooperation framework similar to our own.

None of us are naïve about the problems that lie ahead for Iraq, and the United States will need to continue to focus intensive, high-level energy and attention on the future that Iraqis are trying to build for themselves. That future holds growing promise, and we would be foolish to lose sight of its significance.

The Challenge of Iran

A third challenge before us is the difficult question of Iran. As all of you know very well, this conference falls almost exactly thirty years after one of the most painful, and shameful, episodes in the often turbulent relationship between our two countries. The seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran deeply affected the lives of the courageous Americans who were unjustly held hostage for some 14 months, and we owe each of them and their families an enormous debt of gratitude for their extraordinary service and sacrifice.

This anniversary is a vivid reminder that the hostility between our governments has cost both our nations dearly. To be sure, Iranians have their own list of grievances. But the question before us is whether we can move beyond this troubled past, and seek to ensure that the antagonisms and suspicions of our past do not define the future for America and Iran.

President Obama has made clear that the United States, for our part, wants to look ahead. We seek a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. We do not seek regime change. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. With our partners in the international community, we have demonstrated our willingness to take creative confidence-building steps, including our support for the IAEA’s offer of fuel for the Tehran research reactor. With our partners in the international community, we are ready for a serious dialogue with Iran about how it can resolve longstanding doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear ambitions, doubts only reinforced by the recent revelation of a clandestine enrichment facility near Qom. With our partners in the international community, we are ready to move with Iran along a pathway of cooperation, not confrontation, of integration, not animosity. But that depends squarely on the choices that Iran makes, on its willingness to meet its international obligations and responsibilities.

We have heard for thirty years what Iran is against; the question now is what kind of future it is for. Most Iranians today are too young to remember the hostage crisis. They seem eager to build a better future, to invest in their country’s education system and infrastructure, to connect with the rest of the world in ways that benefit us all, and to open the door to the opportunity, prosperity and justice that they deserve. We in the United States, along with the rest of the international community, continue to bear witness to their courageous pursuit of universal rights, in the face of appalling brutality, and the sad spectacle of show trials and mass arrests that dishonor Iran’s rich history and traditions. While we remain ready to engage the Iranian government on the urgent matter of its nuclear program, and on other matters of common concern, that does not mean that we will turn a blind eye to abuse, or compromise our principles. In Iran, as in any other country in the world, we will always be with those who seek peacefully to protect basic human rights.

We have before us an historic opportunity, but it won’t last forever. The talks that took place in Geneva last month were a constructive beginning. The tactics of recent weeks, however, have been far less encouraging, and we and our international partners are not interested in talking simply for the sake of talking. Too much is at stake, not only for Iran itself, but for a region hardly in need of more tensions or more arms races; for the credibility of the United Nations Security Council; and for the future of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the nuclear non-proliferation regime. It is time for Iran to decide whether it wants to focus on the past, or to move beyond it; whether it wants to dwell on familiar suspicions and imaginary external enemies, or make a positive choice about the role that it seeks to play in the world.

Building Economic and Political Hope

The Arab-Israeli peace process, Iraq and Iran all pose immense challenges, but equally important to long-term regional stability is home-grown modernization of economic and political institutions. The hard truth, as the Arab Human Development Report makes clear, is that much of the region continues to suffer from closed economic and political systems which produce too little diversification, too few jobs, too few outlets for peaceful political change, and too much intolerance.

With populations growing as fast as any in the world, and per capita water availability lower than anywhere else in the world, the economies of the Middle East remain vulnerable. We owe it to our friends in the region as well as ourselves to encourage further structural reforms to open up and diversify economies, stimulate private sector-led growth, improve transparency and fight corruption, and strengthen educational systems.

Greater economic openness cannot exist in a vacuum. Open economic systems ultimately require more open and accommodating political systems. Today, political structures in most of the region all too often serve to insulate governing elites from change, rather than to lead it. The voices of publics are all too often ignored, until raised to a shout. While we ought to be mindful of the limits of our influence, and of the limits of other people’s patience for us telling them what we think is best for them, we must continue to support efforts to open up avenues for democracy and political participation. How we deliver that message does matter, but whether to deliver it is not really an issue.

As President Obama has emphasized, and as Secretary Clinton discussed at length at the recent Forum for the Future meeting in Morocco, healthy relationships between America and the countries of the Middle East are about ties between societies, not just between governments. We have a long and painful history of mutual mistrust and misunderstanding to overcome across much of the region. We will not overcome such suspicion and hostility overnight, nor will neatly packaged public diplomacy be a substitute for compelling policies – and actual results – on issues that matter most to people in the Middle East. But we ought not to underestimate the importance of simple human contact, using tools ranging from exchanges and scholarships, to English-language teaching programs, science envoys, and cultural and sports diplomacy.

Conclusion

I realize that I am now perilously close to embodying Mark Twain’s model for public speaking, the talk them into submission approach. So let me conclude with a few comments that may seem blindingly obvious to all of you, but that bear repeating.

This is a hard time to be optimistic about the Middle East, or America’s role in it. Palestinians and Israelis seem stuck in patterns which do little good for either of them. Iraq faces formidable hurdles. Iran’s leadership seems capable of endless obfuscations. Economic and political systems across the region are often brittle and resistant to change. Most people manage to contain their enthusiasm for American prescriptions, and doubt in any case that results will follow our rhetoric.

None of that, it seems to me, is cause for despair. Of course the road ahead, for us and for our friends across the Middle East, is littered with problems. Of course it will be hard, full of roadblocks and potholes and dead ends. Of course we will fail at least as often as we succeed.

But I genuinely do believe that progress toward peace is possible between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Israel and the wider Arab world. It will take strong nerves, persistence, and a willingness to take risks. Iraqis are also making fitful but unmistakable progress toward the stable, unified state that seemed unimaginable a few years ago. Unity amongst our international partners may yet have an impact on the calculus of the Iranian government. And societies in the Middle East are no more immune to the inexorable pull of economic and political openness than those in any other part of the world.

I suppose that makes me something of an optimist, at least by the standards of the Middle East. That reminds me of one of the many, characteristically fatalistic, Russian definitions of an optimist – “someone who thinks tomorrow will be better than the day after.” I actually have something a little different in mind. I suspect that tomorrow is going to be pretty complicated in the Middle East, with no shortage of troubles and frustrations. But I genuinely do believe that, with sustained and creative American leadership, a willingness from leaders in the region and outside it to take responsibility alongside us, and long-term investment in building economic and political hope across the Middle East, the day after tomorrow holds real and enduring promise.

Thank you.