With all the excitement over the positive developments in Lebanon I forgot to highlight the Feb 8 Rice speech in Paris, and particularly the way she approached the questions.
Her speech, to a hostile audience, was good – not quite the Blair flair, but she hammered the priority points very well. Very diplomatic. Throughout Rice assumes the "shared values" meme:
The history of the United States and that of France are intertwined. Our history is a history of shared values, of shared sacrifice and of shared successes. So, too, will be our shared future.
I cannot guess how that meme is received in Paris. But we don’t expect the secState to focus on how France’s behavior shows little evidence of shared values.
Her main topic is the why and how of supporting democracy development on a global basis:
Just as our own democratic paths have not always been smooth, we realize that democratic reform in the Middle East will be difficult and uneven. Different societies will advance in their own way. Freedom, by its very nature, must be homegrown. It must be chosen. It cannot be given; and it certainly cannot be imposed. That is why, as the President has said, the spread of freedom is the work of generations. But spreading freedom in the Arab and Muslim worlds is also urgent work that cannot be deferred.
My favorite bit follows. If I had been given the speech-writing assignment I would have given the Development objective even more emphasis as I believe that what swamp-draining is really about is: jobs and hope. Jobs especially for the exploding population of illiterate age 15 to 25 youths that are otherwise easy pickings for the Islamist mullahs. Hope for the parents – that their grandchildren may achieve a modern education and live like an Englishman.
Development, transparency and democracy reinforce each other. That is why the spread of freedom under the rule of law is our best hope for progress. Freedom unlocks the creativity and drive that produces genuine wealth. Freedom is the key to incorruptible institutions. Freedom is the key to responsive governments.
I was particularly interested to see how Condi handled the question period – not expecting any softball questions from the French students. This question on multilateralism I thought was handled well:
QUESTION: Good afternoon, Madame Secretary. My name is Ann Gavaeneau (ph) and I’m a fifth-year student in the Master of Public Affairs. And my question is the following: What is the American position on the form multilateralism should adopt in the future? For instance, do the United States consider it more appropriate to act through regional or ad hoc coalition such as the Caucus of Democracy Madeleine Albright launch in Poland, then to use the United Nations means of actions?
Thank you.
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. We have to use all the means at our disposal. The United States is a founding member of the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be strong and active and effective. And we have taken many issues to the United Nations. For instance, the United Nations was instrumental and incredibly important in providing the resolution that now allows us to bring attention to what is happening in Lebanon in terms of Syria.
The United Nations has been critical in providing the mandate for the coalition forces that are now in Iraq as a part of a multinational force there to support the Iraqi people. The United Nations, and I must say that Mr. Valenzuela and Mrs. Pirelli of the United Nations did a wonderful job in assisting the Iraqis in their election. They were very active in Afghanistan. So on and on and on, the United Nations is both an important decision-making body and an important means for carrying out those decisions.
There are also other important fora. Sometimes we can do things through NATO. Sometimes we can do things through the OSCE. And increasingly, it is a good thing when ad hoc coalitions of countries get together on a regional basis because they have some particular interest. I’ll give you three quick examples.
One is, the United States and Russia, China, South Korea, Japan are engaged with North Korea in the six-party talks, because those are the regional neighbors who most want to be sure that there is not a nuclear-armed Korean Peninsula.
That’s an example of an ad hoc arrangement for a regional problem. A problem, by the way, that could have very big international implications, but where the neighborhood is trying to manage it.
A second example is that at the very beginning of the tsunami — when the tsunami hit, the United States, Japan, India and Australia, which had navies in the area, formed a core group so that we could use that naval — those naval assets to make sure that, at the very beginning, aid was getting to the affected areas of the tsunami.
And a third example is a very large coalition, ad hoc group, called the Proliferation Security Initiative, to which France belongs, which is an effort to interdict dangerous cargos related to weapons of mass destruction, using our international laws, using our national laws.
So we have great respect for and want to use the United Nations and the Security Council. But there are times when other mechanisms are equally important. I think we will need to be judged by how effective we are, not just by the forms that we use.
Hopefully the audience will remember that closing sentence as a one-sentence policy summary: get results.
Recent Comments