The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001.  Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date.  This site is not updated so external links may no longer function.  Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Thomas R. Pickering Under Secretary for Political Affairs Remarks at a Council of the Americas Conference Washington, DC, May 11, 1998

Good morning. It's an honor to join you with Bob Mosbacher and several of my most distinguished ambassadorial colleagues and friends. I also appreciate the chance to talk to you today about the U.S. foreign policy agenda, and the hemisphere's central role in it.

As you may know, I've just returned from London where, with the Secretary and my colleague Under Secretary Stu Eizenstat, we engaged in a series of meetings with our G-8 counterparts. Our overall agenda covered everything from climate change to developments in Nigeria. Trade and commercial concerns were central components of our discussions. The year 2000's problem even came up. The session confirmed my own conclusions during these first 12 months as the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, specifically 1) that the foreign policy agenda is more diverse than ever before, 2) that multilateral cooperation has become increasingly important, and 3) that U.S. leadership in both multilateral and bilateral relationships is crucial. These observations are nowhere more true today than in Latin America and the Caribbean.

To state the obvious, most of the traditional Cold War existential threats have subsided. They have been replaced by a dangerous and volatile mix of perils--some new, some ancient. These range from toxic emissions to global warming, from criminal cartels to the apprehension of war criminals, from El Nino weather effects to disruptions in the global economy, from narco-trafficking to border differences. We've seen all of these in our own hemisphere, reached agreement on the threat they pose to our collective well-being, and worked--at the summit, the Organization of American States (OAS), and in other arenas--to build strategies to confront them. This is a pattern I see repeated around the globe.

The dramatic spread of democracy and open markets, hand-in-hand with the explosion in technology and communications, constitute revolutionary changes that make the world, and our hemisphere, better. As a former Ambassador to El Salvador, I am proud and relieved to see a democratic government in place, with respect for human rights broadly accepted, and an economy that is growing and providing new opportunities for Salvadorans.

These same changes, however, also challenge traditional foreign policy mechanisms. Instant communication erodes barriers that governments like Cuba erect around their people; it also creates the demand for an instant response, leading to pressure for instant policy-making--which is about as satisfying as instant tea!

Global integration provides the opportunity to raise living standards around the world, but also brings the risk that economic tremors in one place, such as Asia, will reverberate everywhere. Again, our regional economies have held up well under the pressures, and I think that's a testament to the far-sighted reforms the hemisphere's leaders have undertaken. There's no doubt that globalization is enriching the lives of ordinary people. But at the same time, it may erode some of the local traditions and values to which they are attached. In short, with the end of the Cold War, the world has not depleted its supply of dynamic paradoxes and the next century will be replete with challenges and opportunities.

I am even more convinced today than I was 1 year ago that America's place in this system is at the front and center. Our challenge for the opening of the new century--the new millennium--is to ensure that the connections binding America to the rest of the world are strong and healthy. This is the principle that underlies our support for the Summit of the Americas process. The bonds that connect us to the world are not shackles--they are living links between common interests. By lending a hand to those abroad who are trying to build democracy, to emerge from poverty or to make peace with their neighbors, we broaden the partnership of responsible nations and widen the circle of peace and prosperity. The Summit of the Americas epitomizes and--more importantly--realizes these objectives and more.

Americans relish the notion of being "Number One." But being number one doesn't answer all of our nation's problems or remove all of the traditional burdens we have carried. For American leadership to be more than a catch phrase, we have to meet the new challenges and exploit the immense opportunities that flow from the new world environment. To lead, we need resources and to obtain resources, we need public support and understanding for what we are doing in the international arena. To succeed, we need to deliver to our constituencies among the American people, and the business community is a key one. Our multifaceted agenda includes making sure American companies get a fair shake through effective advocacy, and by encouraging progress on the longer-term issues of crime, corruption, transparency, and independent judiciaries.

America has tremendous interests in every region and on every continent, but especially so in our own hemisphere. Even Americans who say they don't care about foreign affairs and who oppose foreign aid will admit that American leadership in the world matters; it matters a lot. And even those people who believe we are vastly overspending on foreign assistance programs tell pollsters that they think about 5% of the Federal budget should go to such programs. As you well know, only about 1% of the budget covers the entire foreign affairs account. And similarly, and even more importantly, 20-30% of our GDP and jobs is based on foreign-related business activity. Clearly, there is nothing "foreign" about foreign affairs.

With the end of the Cold War, it has fallen to us to lead but it has not become easier for us to do so. We cannot simply command compliance from even our friends, let alone from problem states. This presents a huge challenge. We must sustain and update our diplomatic skills in order to get out into the world, understand what others are doing and thinking, and find ways to influence their behavior through persuasion.

There is no more central venue for this than the United Nations. In Haiti, in El Salvador, and in Guatemala, the United Nations has been a potent and persuasive influence for achieving an end to conflict and the beginnings of peace. The notion that the U.S. is in some fashion turning over American sovereignty to the UN--a theory popular among the group we increasingly call the "black helicopter crowd"--is misguided and dangerous.

The truth is that the UN is not an alien presence on U.S. soil. It was made in America--invented by people with names such as Acheson, Vandenburg, Roosevelt, and Truman. Our predecessors brought it together, helped write its charter, and approved its rules. Our children and grandchildren deserve to inherit that legacy. The United Nations was born mid-way through this century. It is crucial that the organization survive and thrive in the next.

Last year, the President and the Secretary painstakingly developed bipartisan support for a plan that would have encouraged UN reform while paying nearly all of the roughly $1 billion we owe. This year, the President again asked the Congress to help us pay all that we owe. But despite our best efforts, that legislation has been blocked. The tactics of some members of Congress in tying the UN arrears proposal to an unrelated change in U.S. policy toward international population programs is a dreadful mistake that is hurting America. Whether the issue is human rights or proliferation or trade, U.S. diplomats argue every day in meetings around the world that nations must live up to their obligations. And every day, our diplomats are served the riposte: In that case, when is America going to pay its UN bills?

If by early next year we don't pay those bills, under UN rules, we may even lose the right to vote in the UN General Assembly. This is not a triumph of leadership by which to mark the end of the century. Paying our UN bills is not just a question of dollars and cents, it is a question of credibility and moral authority. It is in our interests and it is a litmus test of our willingness to practice what we preach. No country benefits more from the international system; no country has more to lose from a breakdown of discipline in that order.

Let me take a moment to reflect on the significant achievements of the OAS in this, its 50th year. In Washington, in Bogota, and next month in Caracas, the OAS will celebrate its contribution to regional cooperation, its serious promotion of human rights, and a strong commitment to democracy. These are important principles which provide the strong foundation for the organization's future success. I think it is vital that OAS member states resist the temptation to overlook or short-circuit these pillars to accommodate the single regional government, Cuba, which does not share--and even opposes--those principles, nor does it strive to implement them at home.

The OAS and other regional coalitions are increasingly essential in helping us address global issues of law enforcement, good governance, and the environment. The Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) is leading an important effort to develop a multilateral counternarcotics strategy. The OAS Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Firearms, like the Treaty of Tlatelolco, stands as a model for other regions. Moreover, we are coordinating more effectively our efforts in the Western hemisphere with allies in other regions. The New Transatlantic Agenda, for example, provides the framework in which the U.S. and the EU work together to support democratic development in Central America and strengthen the new democracy in Haiti.

It is clear, therefore, that in our own hemisphere and beyond, diplomacy is changing as we confront different trends and as we turn increasingly to international partnerships and organizations to help us build a peaceful, prosperous world. However, we will continue to inhabit a world of sovereign states. As a result, multilateral approaches will be only one means of meeting our international challenges--and not always the means of choice.

Bilateral diplomacy remains central to our conduct of foreign affairs. Not only are our bilateral relations with major powers of critical importance in their own right, they often form the nucleus of coalitions of the willing or, in circumstances where we cannot agree, block international consensus on a given issue. Moreover, on trade, investment, and commercial issues bilateral ties are as or more important than multilateral ones. Finally, in the land of the abrazo we all know that the personal contacts between our leaders and hemispheric counterparts are fundamental to avoiding misunderstandings and maintaining communication, especially in policy areas where we have differences.

The rules of the game, though, are changing in bilateral diplomacy as well. We've had to throw out our old rolodexes and go to the expanded memory of the "palm pilot" to include the NGOs, business leaders, academics, journalists, and others who are now part of the foreign policy game.

Domestic players and domestic reactions are also important factors. Domestic politics were always a part of foreign policy formulation. But today, global communication and economic integration mean that the problems of "foreign affairs" are felt here at home and make for a world where our domestic priorities significantly influence our foreign policy. I think the inauguration of the NAFTA trilaterals at this year's summit--where Secretary Albright met jointly with Canadian Foreign Minister Axworthy and Mexican Foreign Minister Green--highlights this fundamental nexus between domestic and foreign policy.

The Council of the Americas forms an important part of that nexus. Your personal contacts, business investments, and personal interest in Latin America have helped foster the kind of partnership I've been talking about today, and the kind of vision that made the Summit Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action possible. We need you to stay engaged, and work with us to show that foreign policy--multilateral and bilateral--is integrally important to the welfare of every American.

We also need you to tell us what's working, and what's not working in the region--and in the way the Department of State works with you and for you. So this is my chance to say thank you.

This is also my chance to recognize the signal contributions made by two of the Administration's finest officials, who have worked with imagination and ingenuity to keep our policy with Latin America and the Caribbean on an even keel. We will miss the statesmanlike contribution of Mack McLarty, who I believe will be meeting with you tomorrow. Mack has been generous with his time, his energy, and his commitment to make our relationships with our hemispheric partners work better. When I spoke earlier of the importance of personal engagement in the conduct of foreign policy, I had Mack in mind. But I was also thinking of Jeff Davidow, who has been the steady hand at ARA's helm as well as one of our most outstanding foreign service officers in every respect. For this reason he's been nominated to manage one of our most important relationships--and I'm sure, the Senate willing, he'll be as much of a success in Mexico City as he has been here.

Let me close by looking ahead and focusing in on Latin America and the Caribbean. I am heartened by the genuine partnership forged by the summit process, and more fundamentally by our shared values. The hemisphere stands ready to compete in, and contribute to, the increasingly complex, increasingly multilateral global environment I described earlier, with one exception. I look forward to the day when Cuba's government shares our values and our visions--but until that day our pressure on the Cuban Government will not cease, even as our hand to the Cuban people remains extended in friendship. We differ with many in the region on our economic sanctions, but the hemisphere stands united in its belief that Cuba's people deserve to experience the same freedoms the rest of us protect and defend, at home, in the region, and around the world. This is the common ground on which most of us in the hemisphere stand, and increasingly the rest of the world is joining us. It is also the foundation from which we will build our partnership for the future.

[end of document]

Return to the DOSFAN Home Page. This is an official U.S. Government source for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links does not imply endorsement of contents.