AMERICAN - State · SHINING A LIGHT: U.S. EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN DEMOCRACY WORLDWIDE 25 By Paula Dobriansky ... to win World War II and its dedication to rebuilding those war …

U.S. FOREIGN POLICYA G E N D A

VOLUME 8 AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE NUMBER 1

AUGUST 2003

AMERICANINTERNATIONALISM

It is America’s honor and gift to be a nation of nations,

whose people and aspirations touch every nation on the face

of the earth. From universal dreams of freedom, equality,

and prosperity, we became a country that melded many

different cultures, ideas, perspectives, and talents — giving

us a rich diversity that continues to make us strong today.

With this strength comes great responsibility and a desire to

engage with the international community. We are proud to

say that the American way in the world is to promote

freedom, democracy, free trade and development. It is to seek security for people who

have already suffered too much. It is to inspire and be inspired by other nations to work

together toward a peaceful and prosperous future. And words are not enough. Americans

are committed to turning these visions into action.

Differences among nations and their governments are inevitable, of course. But our

differences should not be equated with American unilateralism or American isolationism.

On occasion, our experiences, our interests, will lead us to see things in a different way.

For our part, we will not join a consensus if we believe it compromises our core

principles. Nor would we expect other nations to join in a consensus that would

compromise their core principles. When we feel strongly about something, we will lead.

However the United States will always endeavor to achieve international agreement, and a

look around the globe shows the United States working intensively with allies and

partners on every continent.

I am pleased to welcome you to this electronic journal, which illustrates America’s

extensive record of cooperation, consensus and leadership as we strive to live up to our

global responsibilities and our founding principles. I hope you’ll share it with others who

believe — like you — in the importance of American internationalism.

Colin L. PowellSecretary of State

2

AMERICAN INTERNATIONALISM

U. S. FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 1 • AUGUST 2003

3


An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State

AMERICAN INTERNATIONALISM

CONTENTS

_ INTRODUCTION

AMERICAN INTERNATIONALISM: PROMOTING FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, AND DEVELOPMENT 5

By Kim R. HolmesAssistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs

_ WORKING WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

THE UNITED NATIONS AND AMERICAN MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY: PRINCIPLES ANDPRIORITIES FOR A BETTER WORLD 8


_ AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE WORLD ECONOMY 12

By Kevin A. HassettDirector of Economic Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), andJames K. GlassmanAEI Resident Fellow and Washington Post Financial Columnist

UNLEASHING THE TRADE WINDS: A BUILDING-BLOCK APPROACH 16

By Ambassador Robert ZoellickUnited States Trade Representative

THE GLOBAL EFFORT TO STOP TERRORIST FINANCING 21

By Jimmy GuruléProfessor of Law, Notre Dame Law School, University of Notre Dame

_ PROMOTING DEMOCRATIC IDEALS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

SHINING A LIGHT: U.S. EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN DEMOCRACY WORLDWIDE 25

By Paula DobrianskyUnder Secretary of State for Global Affairs

BUILDING A WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRACY: THE ROLE OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 28

By Carl GershmanPresident of the National Endowment for Democracy


4

The Bureau of International Information Programs of the U.S. Department ofState provides products and services that explain U.S. policies, society, andvalues to foreign audiences. The Office disseminates and publishes fiveelectronic journals that examine major issues facing the United States and theinternational community. The journals — Economic Perspectives, Global Issues,Issues of Democracy, U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, and U.S. Society and Values— provide statements of U.S. policy together with analysis, commentary, andbackground information in their thematic areas.

All issues appear in English, French, Portuguese and Spanish languageversions, and selected issues also appear in Arabic and Russian. English-language issues appear at approximately a one-month interval. Translatedversions normally follow the English original by two to four weeks.

The opinions expressed in the journals do not necessarily reflect the views orpolicies of the U.S. government. The U.S. Department of State assumes noresponsibility for the content and continued accessibility of Internet sites linkedto herein; such responsibility resides solely with the publishers of those sites.Articles may be reproduced and translated outside the United States unless thearticles carry explicit copyright restrictions on such use. Potential users ofcredited photos are obliged to clear such use with said source.

Current or back issues of the journals, and the roster of upcoming journals,can be found on the Bureau of International Information Programs’ InternationalHome Page on the World Wide Web athttp://usinfo.state.gov/journals/journals.htm. They are available in severalelectronic formats to facilitate viewing on-line, transferring, downloading, andprinting.

Comments are welcome at your local U.S. Embassy or at the editorialoffices:

Editor, U.S. Foreign Policy AgendaPolitical Security — IIP/T/PSU.S. Department of State301 4th Street, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20547United States of AmericaE-mail: [email protected]

Please note that this issue of U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA can belocated on the Bureau of International Information Programs’ InternationalHome Page on the World Wide Web at“http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0801/ijpe/ijpe0801.htm”.

Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judith S. Siegel

Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael T. Scanlin

Managing Editor . . . . . . . . . David Anthony Denny

Associate Editor . . . . . . . . . Christian Larson

Contributing Editors . . . . . Brenda Butler

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jennifer Flahive

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soo Jung Han

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merle David Kellerhals, Jr.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Margaret Ann McKay

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jody Rose Platt

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacquelyn S. Porth

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jay Richter

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christopher Siefken

Reference Specialists . . . . Samuel Moncrief Anderson

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Camille Lyon

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rebecca Ford Mitchell

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vivian Stahl

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liliana Vivanco

Program Assistant . . . . . . . Tracy Nelson

Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . Min-Chih Yao

Graphics Assistant . . . . . . . Sylvia Scott

Editorial Board . . . . . . . . . . George Clack

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert Holden

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judith S. Siegel

AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 1 • AUGUST 2003

_ GLOBAL VALUES

PUBLIC HEALTH KNOWS NO BORDERS 31

By Tommy ThompsonSecretary of Heath and Human Services

PROVIDING INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP: RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 35

By John TurnerAssistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

THE INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH OF U.S. NGOS 39

By Robert KellettOnline Managing Editor, Mercy Corps

_ A GUIDE TO ADDITIONAL READING

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND INTERNET SITES 42

Spotlighting other views and Internet links to resources on related issues

Peace, prosperity, and freedom — thesefundamental principles fuel the unique form offoreign policy known as American

internationalism. We in America have a longtradition of acting on core values and promotingideals like freedom of speech, the right to vote,freedom of religion, and a free press that so oftenchallenge the power of dictators and ideologues.Unlike the leaders of unfree societies, we believe thateconomic and political freedoms, human rights, andopportunity are not privileges to be handed out by theelite to those they favor; they are rights of every manand woman that must be protected and promoted.

President Bush explained American internationalismthis way in 2002 to the graduates of West Point: “OurNation’s cause has always been larger than ourNation’s defense. We fight, as we always fight, for ajust peace, a peace that favors liberty. We will defendthe peace against the threats from terrorists andtyrants. We will preserve the peace by building goodrelations among the great powers. And we willextend the peace by encouraging free and opensocieties on every continent…. Building this justpeace is … America’s duty.”

Americans understand this awesome obligation. That is why we gave the President strong support forfighting terrorism, freeing the Afghan people fromthe Taliban, and liberating Iraqis from Saddam

Hussein’s horrific regime. American values todayecho those that fueled the United States’ determinationto win World War II and its dedication to rebuildingthose war-torn nations. These values also guided ourefforts during the Cold War. Time and again, ourdeeply held desire to see that everyone is free hasinspired a generosity of time, talent, and life itself.

We have largely met with success. Henry Kissinger,as national security adviser, once observed that, “Noforeign policy —- no matter how ingenious —- hasany chance of success if it is born in the minds of afew and carried in the hearts of none.” Americaninternationalism succeeds precisely because it isbased on values carried in the hearts of multitudes.These values are not uniquely American, butuniversal and global in their appeal. They do notseek to impose specific cultural norms, but ratherprovide the tools and freedom for each society torealize its own potential based on its own cultural,ethnic, and religious traditions.

History has shown that the strongest, most stable,tolerant, and prosperous countries are those thatrespect the universal principles of human rights, ruleof law, and democracy. The promotion of humanrights and fundamental freedoms is in the nationalinterest of every member of the internationalcommunity because governments that protect humanrights are those best able to secure peace, promote

5

AMERICAN INTERNATIONALISM: PROMOTING FREEDOM,DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT


“Neither protectionist nor expansionist, American internationalism seeks to preserveliberty and to promote opportunity, human dignity, freedom, prosperity, and peace, both at home and abroad,” says Kim R. Holmes, Assistant Secretary of State forInternational Organization Affairs. U.S. actions in support of these goals, he says, are illustrated by the articles in this journal, which provide pertinent examples ofAmerica’s engagement with the world.

_ I N T R O D U C T I O N

economic development, combat internationalterrorism and crime, avoid humanitarian crises, andimprove the global environment.

Neither protectionist nor expansionist, Americaninternationalism seeks to preserve liberty and topromote opportunity, human dignity, freedom,prosperity, and peace, both at home and abroad.When America has intervened, it has done soreluctantly and stayed only as long as necessary. We seek to leave countries better than they werebefore. To help those in desperate need, wecontribute more to humanitarian relief, both publiclyand privately, than any other country. We engage inthe United Nations system to advance theseobjectives and all of our other interests. We also seekto make the United Nations more effective, whetherwe are talking about the Security Council, theCommission on Human Rights, peacekeeping, or thework of its specialized agencies.

Our core values can be seen not only in what ourgovernment does bilaterally and multilaterally. Theyalso are reflected in the day-to-day efforts ofAmerican citizens, the private sector, religiousgroups, and nongovernmental organizations thatpromote freedom and opportunity around the world.Our dedication to principles and values is not lost onthe world, even as American internationalism remainsa lightning rod for criticism from those who view ourmotives with suspicion.

American internationalism, after all, is not a rigiddoctrine. It can and often does take on the characterof a president as he responds to the urgency ofproblems facing the world. President Bush’s“distinctly American internationalism” resonates withAmericans because it is a response to the real andglobal threats of terrorism, pandemic disease,poverty, trafficking in persons, and more. Americanssupport his efforts to protect innocent people fromweapons of mass destruction in the hands of al-Qaedaand other terrorists; to promote freedom, goodgovernance, and prosperity through new initiativeslike the Millennium Challenge Account; and to fightHIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases that ravagesocieties through a multimillion-dollar commitmentto the Global Fund and other programs.

American internationalism is, in fact, best illustratedby U.S. actions. The articles that follow will discussthese and other pertinent examples of America’sengagement with the world. We begin with adiscussion of the principles and priorities that guideour multilateral engagement in the United Nations topromote freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity.

Economist Kevin Hassett and scholar JamesGlassman consider how America’s trade policybenefits the world economy and helps developingcountries, even when it adds to our trade deficit. U.S.Trade Representative Robert Zoellick presents afrank assessment of America’s “building-blockapproach” to promoting security, prosperity, andfreedom through trade agreements and liberalization.University of Notre Dame Law Professor JimmyGurulé, a former Under Secretary of the Treasury,considers how U.S. foreign policy successfully builtand expanded international consensus on restrictingterrorist financing.

Next, Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky andNational Endowment for Democracy (NED)President Carl Gershman examine America’s drive tospread democracy and freedom through public andprivate efforts. Together, their articles offer a broadpicture of our effectiveness, including the growth ofnascent movements in undemocratic states with oursupport and that of nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) like the NED.

Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)Tommy Thompson discusses America’s effort toimprove global health by improving internationalcapabilities to respond to public health threats likeSARS, and to rid the world of infectious diseases thatknow no boundaries but devastate whole societies.The Early Warning Global Health Initiative and theHHS Global Health Security Initiative are twoexamples.

Environmental threats also know no boundaries.Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans andInternational Environmental and Scientific AffairsJohn Turner discusses America’s efforts to createresponsible international environmental policy toprotect the world’s resources and reduce the use of

6

harmful chemicals and pollutants. Finally, RobertKellett of Mercy Corps discusses the work of NGOsthat further America’s efforts to alleviate poverty andoppression and help people secure political andeconomic freedoms and human rights.

Much more could be written on this issue, of course.But as these articles make clear, Americaninternationalism is far from unilateralist. Americansbelieve freedom, peace, and prosperity are universalaspirations, and free countries have a responsibility to

help others realize them. As President Bush put it,and the multilateral policies described in thesearticles attest, “No nation owns these aspirations, andno nation is exempt from them. We have no intentionof imposing our culture [on others]. America willalways stand firm for the non-negotiable demands ofhuman dignity.” Working with our friends and allies,we will continue striving to defeat terror, alleviatehunger, disease, and oppression around the world,and spread the opportunities that liberty anddemocracy provide. _

7


8

Nations the world over live in an age ofunprecedented promise made possible bypolitical liberty and free markets, technology

and trade, and peaceful relations among the greatpowers. Our time is also one of extraordinaryproblems and escalating dangers, both natural andman-made. Pandemics such as HIV/AIDS visitmisery and death on untold millions, endangeringwhole societies. Too many of our fellow humanbeings live under dictatorial and corrupt regimes thatdeny them the most basic of rights and the possibilityof a better future.

Finally, in the greatest threat of our time, terroristsand tyrants, who fear freedom’s advance, seek todestroy the open societies that foster it. They havemurdered the innocent in appalling numbers in everycorner of the world. They seek to get chemical,biological, and nuclear weapons to destroy liveswholesale, and all else that men and women ofgoodwill around the world cherish.

This administration’s overarching aims are to meetthe major foreign policy challenges of our time whilehelping greater numbers of people to realize freedomand democracy’s gifts. We see multilateral diplomacyas essential to this effort. Whether it is in the UnitedNations, the Organization of American States, theAsia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, or one ofthe many other international organizations in which

the United States participates, our diplomatsenergetically work with other nations to findsolutions to the problems of our era. As PresidentBush has declared: “This is America’s agenda in theworld — from the defeat of terror, to the alleviationof disease and hunger, to the spread of human liberty.We welcome, and we need, the help, advice, andwisdom of friends and allies.”

Effective multilateralism, the Bush Administrationbelieves, should always have a clear, worthy, andattainable purpose. Multilateralism should seek morethan laudable goals; it should seek practical actionswith achievable outcomes to address the significantproblems of the day. Consensus is desirable andpotentially useful. But achieving it should not comeat the expense of results, which ordinary peoplearound the world need if they are to get the peace andsecurity, health and economic opportunity, liberty anddignity they need.

Not every member of every internationalorganization will agree on every issue every time.We think, however, that U.N. members owe anobligation to each other to make a good-faith effort toreach an agreement consistent with higher principleand interest. The United States has done this onnumerous issues, going to great lengths, for example,in the U.N. Security Council to achieve consensusaround controversial questions.

THE UNITED NATIONS AND AMERICAN MULTILATERALDIPLOMACY: PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIES FOR A

BETTER WORLDBy Kim R. Holmes

Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs

U.S. actions in the United Nations are based on three principles, according to Kim Holmes, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. He says America seeks: to have the organization live up to “the vision of its founders;” to have an effective, results-oriented multilateralism — not “empty declarations;” and to ensure the “good stewardship of U.N. resources.”

_ W O R K I N G W I T H I N T E R N AT I O N A L O R G A N I Z AT I O N S

9

In the last year, despite vigorous American efforts,the Security Council could not always bridge itsdifferences on the necessity of using force to bringIraq into compliance with its solemn duties. Butbefore the recent war and afterward, the United Statesdid succeed in working with other Security Councilmembers to secure approval, where possible, ofimportant resolutions.

The first, Resolution 1441 (November 8, 2002),demanded that Iraq end its material breach of itsinternational obligations or face seriousconsequences. The second, Resolution 1483 (May22, 2003), coming after Iraq’s liberation, lifted thedecade-old U.N. sanctions on the country; recognizedCoalition authority there until a representative,internationally recognized government would beestablished; and affirmed the U.N.’s vital role incooperating with the Coalition to help the Iraqipeople build a better future.

The United States works for effective SecurityCouncil action when feasible. It also invests hugefinancial resources in a host of U.N. agencies to helpnations everywhere in myriad ways — from feedingtheir hungry, to creating a natural disaster earlywarning system that will save lives, or even tohelping keep the international postal system, whichevery nation depends on in our interconnected world,functioning smoothly.

PRINCIPLES

The United Nations and many of its specializedagencies have their success stories. They also havetheir failures. The United States seeks more U.N.successes and fewer failures. Three principles guideAmerica’s engagement with the United Nations and,more broadly, multilateralism:

Principle No. 1: We want the United Nations tolive up to the vision of its founders, which callsupon all member states to contribute to internationalpeace and security while giving their citizensfreedom, health, and economic opportunity.Americans, desirous that the United Nations systemsucceed, want their leaders to ensure that it adheres to

that vision, whether the specific objective is gettingIraq to comply with its Security Council obligations,promoting peace and democracy in East Timor, orhelping stop a global illness like SARS.

The Bush administration’s policy during the mostrecent session of the U.N. Commission on HumanRights reflected this results-oriented approach. Whenwe declared our opposition to Libya — one of theworld’s worst human rights violators — asCommission chair, we stood up for the U.N.’sfounding principles and the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights. When we now work to reform thistroubled body, our goals are to help it live up to itspotential and become a support for those millions ofmen, women, and children around the globe deniedtheir inalienable political and civil rights. ACommission on Human Rights, true to its values, willfind new reservoirs of goodwill among Americansand other people throughout the world.

Principle No. 2: We seek multilateralism that iseffective. Multilateral diplomacy should producemore than empty declarations; it should tangiblyadvance peace, freedom, sustainable development,health, and humanitarian assistance to the benefit ofordinary people on every continent. When U.N.organizations perform well, the United States will beenthusiastic. If they fall short, the United States isobligated to say so, as it believes other nationsshould. Likewise, while the United States will act inits self-defense whenever necessary, it will nothesitate to work with the Security Council whencollective action is possible and justified to thwartviolence and promote freedom.

Principle No. 3: We seek good stewardship of U.N.resources. An effective United Nations must spendits resources wisely. The intended beneficiaries of its programs must, indeed, benefit. The United Stateswill work with other member states to ensure that the management and finances of U.N. entities andprograms are sound. We will continue to promotereforms that make the U.N. more capable and efficient.

10

PRIORITIES

These three principles of U.S. engagement, in turn,give rise to five American priorities:Priority No. 1: Preserving Peace and Protectingthe Innocent Threatened by War and Tyranny.These are key challenges that United Nationsmembers must meet if the organization is to besuccessful. Terrorists, proliferators, and aggressivedictators like Saddam Hussein — who had attackedseveral neighboring states — endanger internationalsafety. In the coming year, the United States will,therefore, strive to:

• Strengthen the Security Council’s effectiveness indealing with threats to international peace andsecurity, especially the danger of terrorists or outlawregimes acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

• Build greater capacities among U.N. members todefeat terrorism.

• Ensure equitable burden sharing and more effectivepeacekeeping that stops bloodshed andhumanitarian disasters, particularly in Africa wherethe United Nations is already deeply involved.

• Advance an Arab-Israeli peace settlement thatachieves President Bush’s vision of an end toterrorism, and a democratic Palestine and Israelliving in a peaceful Middle East. We will continueworking with the U.N. through the Quartet to realizethese goals, which also require full inclusion andfair treatment of Israel in all U.N. forums that itdoes not currently enjoy, but deserves.

Priority No. 2: Putting Multilateralism at theService of Democracy, Freedom, and GoodGovernance. These objectives should drive nearlyevery U.N. activity. At the 2002 InternationalConference on Financing for Development inMonterrey, Mexico, and the World Summit onSustainable Development in Johannesburg, SouthAfrica, we brought to international attention thereality that governments that deny their citizensfreedom and that rule them without respect for their

fundamental needs often keep their populations inpoverty. Such governments often become the leadingsources of international violence. Nations, however,that democratize and institutionalize the rule of law athome create the conditions necessary for economicdevelopment. These nations also become thefoundation stones for a peaceful international order.

The United States, therefore, has made a priority ofensuring that all parts of the U.N. system recognizethat promoting freedom, the rule of law and goodgovernance is integral to their missions. The UnitedStates will, likewise, remain vigorous in its supportof U.N. efforts to help budding democracies holdelections, train judges, promote the rule of law, anddiminish corruption.

Priority No. 3: Helping Nations and Individualsin Desperate Need. The United States hasfrequently praised U.N. provision of humanitarianrelief to people in severe distress. We continue to bea leader in supporting U.N. programs that reducepoverty and famine, assist refugees, and fightHIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. We plan onremaining the largest donor to the World FoodProgram, having contributed, in 2002 alone, $929million. We hope that other nations will continue tojoin us in generously funding such critical U.N.endeavors.

Priority No. 4: Advancing Results-OrientedEconomic Development. At the 2002 MonterreyConference on Financing for Development and theJohannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development,the United States helped create an internationalconsensus on the factors that foster economic growthin developing nations. Sustainable developmentcomes from working with market forces rather thanagainst them, and giving people economic freedomand the rule of law. Years of experience have shownthat foreign financial assistance can help promotegrowth if, and only if, governments of developingnations make the necessary reforms at home first.

The United States is now working with other U.N.members to ensure that agencies such as the U.N.

11

Development Program and the U.N. EnvironmentProgram integrate the Monterrey principles intoeverything they do. We are also trying to raiseinternational awareness of the positive role thatbiotechnology can play in promoting economicdevelopment and food security in the world’s poorest regions.

Priority No. 5: Urging U.N. Reform and BudgetDiscipline. Focusing on core missions, living up tooriginal purposes, and wisely using membercontributions will not only improve U.N. institutions,but also increase their credibility and support in theUnited States and elsewhere. The United States willteam up with other members to help the U.N. reformpoorly performing agencies, and terminate ineffectiveand antiquated programs. We will, moreover, striveto ensure that only countries that uphold the UnitedNations’ founding ideals get leadership positions.

CONCLUSION

Multilateralism in the service of freedom, sustainabledevelopment, healthy populations, and a securepeace: That is President George W. Bush’s objective.That is the goal that Secretary of State Colin L.Powell and American diplomats pursue daily withother nations in a host of venues. Regardless of ourobjective — whether it is expanding liberty,encouraging economic growth, combating deadlydiseases, or achieving peace — we must recognizethat realizing any one will often depend on theothers’ success. Each aspiration, simultaneouslyadvanced, will reinforce the other, creating a virtuouscycle. If the United States and other nations pursuethis agenda of constructive multilateralism together,we can improve the lives of ordinary men, women,and children around the world. President Bush andSecretary Powell are confident that, with good willand effort, we can succeed. _


12

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

By Kevin A. HassettDirector of Economic Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

andJames K. Glassman

AEI Resident Fellow and Washington Post Financial Columnist

Rarely in history has one nation been asdominant in the world economy as the UnitedStates is today. The U.S. output of goods and

services — that is, Gross Domestic Product (GDP)— exceeded $10 trillion in 2002. That’s greater thanthe total GDP of the next five countries combined.All told, the United States, with 1/20th of the world’spopulation, accounts for one-third of the world’s outputand, last year, more than three-fifths of its growth.

The U.S. economy is so large that its metropolitanareas produce more than entire countries. Forexample, in 2002, Chicago had about the same GDPas Australia. Boston had the same as Taiwan; Dallas,the same as Saudi Arabia; San Francisco, HongKong; and Milwaukee, Pakistan.

It’s only natural that such a dominant position cansometimes provoke envy and anger from other nations,but the truth is that economics is not a zero-sumgame. In a world that is tied together by trade, theUnited States wins when other nations prosper — andother nations win when the United States prospers.

Trade is a two-way street. Consumers benefit fromimports, which provide goods and services of higherquality or lower prices (or both) than those made at

home. And producers (that is, owners of businessesand employees) benefit from exports, which providemore customers for goods and services.

In 2002, imports to the United States from developingnations totaled a whopping $317 billion. (The UnitedStates is the single largest market for developingnations’ goods.) Exports from the U.S. to thosenations totaled $130 billion. Both imports and exportsare important, but look at the difference, that is, thetrade deficit that resulted for the United States: $187billion. That’s 44 percent of the entire trade deficitthat the United States ran last year with all nations.

In other words, with developing countries, the UnitedStates buys a good deal more than it sells. Consider afew examples. Last year, the Philippines sold exportsworth $11 billion to the United States and boughtAmerican imports worth $7 billion, for a deficit (tothe U.S.) of $4 billion. Malaysia’s exports to theUnited States exceeded its American imports by $14billion. For Korea, the surplus relative to the UnitedStates is $13 billion; for Brazil, $3 billion.

It may be surprising, but high technology is now thelargest export sector for developing countries.Information and communications technology accounted

_ A M E R I C A ’ S R O L E I N T H E G L O B A L E C O N O M Y

“The notion that wealthy countries and big businesses are the mainbeneficiaries of global free trade is flat-out nonsense,” say Kevin Hassett,Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute(AEI) and former Senior Economist at the U.S. Federal Reserve Board,and James Glassman, AEI Resident Fellow and Financial Columnist forthe Washington Post. In this article they point out that 44 percent of theU.S. trade deficit is with developing countries, and warn that a slowdownin global trade would hurt developing countries most.

Kevin A. Hassett James K. Glassman

13

for $450 billion worth of exports by developingnations — compared with $235 billion for resource-based goods and $405 billion for low-tech goods.

Not only does the United States buy hundreds ofbillions of dollars worth of goods produced bydeveloping nations, it also invests heavily in thosecountries. Roughly three out of every eight dollars inforeign direct investment in Africa comes from theUnited States — more than from any other country(France is second at 18 percent — less than half asmuch). Between 1996 and 2000 (latest figures), theUnited States invested $9.2 billion in Africa,compared with $4.4 billion invested by France and$3.3 billion by the United Kingdom.

The integration and liberalization of financialmarkets over the past 20 years has allowed capital toflow to its best uses, with broad benefits globally. Anacademic paper published earlier this year by GeertBekaert of Columbia University and two colleaguesfound that “equity market liberalizations, on average,lead to a one percent increase in annual realeconomic growth over a five-year period.” Thatfigure, say the authors, “is surprisingly large” (afterall, GDP growth averages only about 3 percent ayear). “Liberalization” means that foreign investorscan invest in the securities of other countries — theirstocks and bonds. The researchers also discoveredthat the countries that gained the most fromliberalization were those — such as developingnations — that were furthest behind but movingforward in implementing macroeconomic reforms.

For example, in the five years after liberalization,GDP growth in India averaged 5.7 percent annually,compared with 3.2 percent in the five years beforeliberalization. Thailand’s average five-year growthwas 8.7 percent after liberalization of its securitiesmarkets and 3.5 percent before. Of course, not alldeveloping nations enjoyed such increases, but theaverage country did, and the results are powerful.

Again, investment is a two-way street. Because theUnited States is a relatively stable and safe place toinvest, it provides an enormous haven for capitalinvestments (in stocks, bonds, real estate, and wholebusinesses) from abroad. Those capital inflows

provide the necessary support for imports into theUnited States, so that this country can sustain thoselarge trade deficits. Income generated throughinvestments in the United States is often used byforeign entrepreneurs and investors to start and expandbusinesses at home. Think of the United States as theengine room, powering the world economy.

The success of the United States has come not fromits natural resources or its large population but fromits free-market system, which allows people, eitheralone or in groups, to make their own choices (wherethey work, what they buy, what they pay), with littlegovernment interference. Capital and labor move towhere they are most efficient. No wonder studieshave shown a direct correlation between how free aneconomy is and how successful it is.

Liberalized trade — in broadly multilateral, regionalor bilateral agreements — is a key ingredient in therecipe for prosperity. And the benefits for developingcountries are even greater — on a proportional basis— than for the United States. New global tradenegotiations will, if they succeed, generate $90billion to $190 billion a year in higher incomes fordeveloping nations, according to a study by JosephFrancois of Erasmus University in Rotterdam.Recent World Bank research found that developingcountries that embraced globalization grew three-and-a-half times faster than developing countries thatdid not. As Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretarygeneral, put it, “The poor are poor not because of toomuch globalization but because of too little.”

The trade liberalization that was introduced in theUruguay Round provides a good illustration. In thesix years after the round, exports from developingnations grew by $1 trillion, to a total of $2.4 trillionin 2002. During that time, the United States boostedits imports from developing countries by 82 percent.The reason is not hard to guess: Three-fifths of thoseimports came into the United States duty-free.

An absolute prerequisite for long-term economicgrowth is full participation in the global economy andtrading system. Still, the U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID) has a budget of$1.2 billion for food assistance this year, up from

14

Rank Metro Area GDP (Billions) Country GDP (Billions)

1 New York, NY 523.43 India 502.42

2 Chicago, IL 389.46 Australia 399.09

3 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 373.77 Australia 399.09

4 Boston, MA-NH 285.92 Taiwan 281.51

5 Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV 282.18 Taiwan 281.51

6 Houston, TX 212.88 Austria 206.2

7 Philadelphia, PA 210.6 Austria 206.2

8 Atlanta, GA 210.2 Austria 206.2

9 Dallas, TX 195.72 Saudi Arabia 190.98

10 Detroit, MI 179.31 Turkey 182.83

11 San Francisco, CA 155.56 Hong Kong 162.98

12 San Jose, CA 153.49 Hong Kong 162.98

13 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 145.6 Greece 133.24

14 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA 138.18 Greece 133.24

15 Orange County, CA 137.73 Greece 133.24

16 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 132.38 Finland 132.23

17 San Diego, CA 119.26 Ireland 121.8

18 Newark, NJ 109.41 Iran 106.39

19 Oakland, CA 108.7 Iran 106.39

20 Baltimore, MD 106.33 Iran 106.39

Source: The Dismal Scientist from Economy.com

GDP in Major U.S. Metropolitan Areas Relative to Specific Countries

$850 million in 2002. The United States is the largestdonor to the World Food Program’s operations insouthern Africa, and USAID has recently providedfunding for emergency assistance in Central America,the Sudan and other parts of the world. In addition,private U.S. charities, like the Bill and Melinda GatesFoundation are giving billions of dollars to fightpoverty and hunger.

The notion that wealthy countries and big businessesare the main beneficiaries of global free trade is flat-out nonsense. The United States could continue toprosper if it backed away from the world-trade stage.Even if it stopped trading altogether, the UnitedStates would continue to enjoy a high standard ofliving, with a GDP of more than $30,000 per person.America’s lifestyle might slip from 2003 levels to

mid-1990s levels. That’s all. But if trade stops or evenslows down, developing countries would bedevastated. No longer would citizens be able to getquality goods at bargain prices. No longer wouldsmaller nations be able to increase their markets on avast scale.

But the United States understands the responsibilitiesthat come with being the world’s largest economy. Bygiving foreign nations access to its domestic markets— and pushing other nations to open up even more— the United States has become a key contributor togrowth in developing nations. _

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Government.

15

Near East & Northern Africa GDP (Billions) Metro Area GDP (Billions)

Saudi Arabia 190.98 Dallas, TX 195.72

Iran 106.39 Baltimore, MD 106.33

United Arab Emirates 71.24 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 70.26

Pakistan 65.14 Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI 64.19

Algeria 54.15 Fort Lauderdale, FL 54.39

Kuwait 33.22 Omaha, NE-IA 33.52

Syrian Arab Republic 22.14 Des Moines, IA 22

Tunisia 21.25 Ann Arbor, MI 21.3

Libya 19.74 Columbia, SC 20.08

Lebanon 17.33 Bakersfield, CA 17.47

Qatar 17.26 Fort Wayne, IN 17.12

Yemen 10.04 Springfield, MO 10.02

Jordan 9.3 Tallahassee, FL 9.27

Bahrain 8.51 Newburgh, NY 8.56

Source: The Dismal Scientist from Economy.com

U. S. FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 1 • AUGUST 2003U. S. FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 02

16

As President Bush’s first term approaches itsmidpoint, the commentary about Americantrade policy has shifted. The debate is now

over how — not whether — the United States isadvancing free trade.

America has stated its intentions plainly. We willpromote free trade globally, regionally and bilaterally,while rebuilding support at home. By movingforward on multiple fronts, the United States canexert its leverage for openness, create a newcompetition in liberalization, target the needs ofdeveloping countries, and create a fresh politicaldynamic by putting free trade onto the offensive.

America’s trade policies are connected to our broadereconomic, political, and security aims. Thisintellectual integration may confound some tradescholars, but it follows in the footsteps of thearchitects of reconstruction after 1945. In fact, itsroots extend to the protesters who dumped Englishtea in Boston harbor. To be sustainable at home, ourtrade strategy needs to be aligned with America’svalues and aspirations — as well as with oureconomic interests. And to be influential abroad, weseek to listen and learn from our trading partners,large and small. To lead globally, President Bushrecognized that he had to reverse the retreat on tradepolicy at home. Any American president buildingsupport for trade must overcome protectionists,

special interests, anti-globalization nihilists andpartisanship against the President. Nevertheless, the President was not diverted by an economicslowdown or terrorism. He pressed Congress toenact the Trade Act of 2002, which re-established thevital trade authority (“fast track”) that had lapsed foreight years. Republicans compromised with pro-trade Democrats on an environmental and labor tradeagenda, without overstepping concerns aboutsovereignty and protectionism. The act included alarge, immediate down payment on open trade for the neediest, cutting tariffs to zero for an estimated$20 billion in American imports from the developing world.

To rebuild a congressional coalition, theadministration had to demonstrate that the UnitedStates would use international rules to pursue itsinterests. Since American trade-weighted tariffsaverage only about 1.6 percent, congressional supportfor lower barriers depends on the Executive’swillingness to use the same rules employed by othercountries. One Republican leader in the Senate toldme that the administration’s record of enforcinginternational rules was the most persuasive argumentfor granting the president more negotiating authority.By leading the fight at home for freer trade within asystem of enforceable international rules, PresidentBush has strengthened America’s power to promotefree commerce abroad.

UNLEASHING THE TRADE WINDS: A BUILDING-BLOCK APPROACH

By Ambassador Robert B. ZoellickUnited States Trade Representative

Achieving free trade across the globe is a daunting task. But America is committed, saysAmbassador Robert B. Zoellick, the United States Trade Representative and a member ofPresident Bush’s Cabinet. He handled the NAFTA talks and the Uruguay round at theState Department from 1989-92. The following is adapted from an article he wrote for theDecember 7-13, 2002, issue of The Economist.

17

THE TASK AT DOHA

Coming to office as it did in the wake of the Seattledebacle for the World Trade Organization, the Bushadministration recognized the importance oflaunching a new global trade round. Working withthe European Union (EU) and others, and againstlong odds, we helped to launch the DohaDevelopment Agenda (DDA). The WTO itself hasbeen strengthened by adding China and Taiwan asmembers, and efforts are in train to add Russia before long.

The United States is fully committed to completingthe DDA by the agreed deadline of 2005. We havealready tabled far-reaching proposals in agriculture,industrial and consumer goods, and services, tohighlight the primary goal of the WTO: to openaccess to markets and to spur growth anddevelopment.

America’s goal in the farm negotiations is toharmonize subsidies and tariffs while slashing themto much lower levels, on a path toward elimination.The last global trade negotiation — the Uruguayround — accepted high and asymmetrical levels ofsubsidies and tariffs just to get them under somecontrol. For example, the United States accepted acap for the European Union’s production-distortingsubsidies that was three times the size of America’s,even though agriculture represents about the sameproportion of our economies.

The farm bill — which authorized up to $123 billionin all types of food-stamp, conservation and farmspending over six years, amounts within WTO limits— made clear that America will not cut agriculturalsupport unilaterally. But America’s farmers andCongress back our proposal that all nations shouldcut together. The United States wants to eliminatethe most egregious and distorting agriculturalpayments, export subsidies. We would cut globalsubsidies that distort domestic farm production bysome $100 billion, slashing our own limit almost inhalf. We would cut the global average farm tarifffrom 60 percent to 15 percent, and the Americanaverage from 12 percent to 5 percent. The United

States also advocates agreeing on a date for the total elimination of agricultural tariffs and distorting subsidies.

The American proposal for manufactured goodswould free the world of tariffs on these products by2015. This was the trade sector first targeted by thefounders of the General Agreement on Tariffs andTrade (GATT) in 1947; after more than 50 years ofwork, about half the world’s trade in goods has beenfreed from tariffs. It is time to finish the job.

With zero tariffs, the manufacturing sectors ofdeveloping countries could compete fairly. Theproposal would eliminate the barriers betweendeveloping countries, which pay 70 percent of theirtariffs on manufactured goods to one another. Byeliminating barriers to the farm and manufactured-goods trade, the income of the developing worldcould be boosted by over $500 billion.

The American proposal on trade in services wouldbroaden opportunities for growth and development ina sector that is just taking off in the internationaleconomy. Services represent about two-thirds of theAmerican economy and 80 percent of ouremployment, but account for only about 20 percent ofworld trade. The World Bank has pointed out thateliminating services barriers in developing countriesalone would yield them a $900 billion gain.

The United States listens to the concerns ofdeveloping countries striving towards free trade. Thisyear, we devoted $638 million to help such countriesbuild the capacity to take part in trade negotiations,implement the rules and seize opportunities. Wehave acted in partnership with the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank to integrate trade and finance,and we are urging the World Bank and the IMF toback their rhetoric on trade with resources.

We agreed at Doha that the flexibility in the globalintellectual-property rules could be used to allowpoor countries to license medicines compulsorily todeal with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and otherepidemics. We are also committed to helping thosepoor regions and states obtain medicines produced

18

abroad — if they cannot manufacture them locally —as long as other countries with pharmaceuticalindustries do not carve these special terms intoloopholes to circumvent the intellectual-propertyprotection that rewards research on the medicines ofthe future.

The Doha negotiations include customized treatmentfor developing countries. Yet flexible transitions andspecial needs should not degenerate into perpetualprotectionism. “Good intentions” that cover up tradebarriers raise prices for the poorest people, profitcosseted interests, increase costs for competitivebusinesses and block exports from productive firmsand workers to other developing countries. We arepleased that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)such as Oxfam now recognize the benefits of tradefor development, but they need to acknowledge thatthese benefits flow from removing barriers to importsas well as from promoting exports and competition athome. The WTO can foster export-driven growth fordeveloping countries without reviving the neo-colonialist trade patterns promoted by an earliergeneration.

EUROPE AS PARTNER

As one African minister told me recently, when theUnited States and the EU agree on a course in theWTO, we cannot ensure success, but we make itmuch more likely. Fortunately, I have no doubt thatmy respected and close colleague Pascal Lamy, theEU trade commissioner, is just as committed tocompleting the Doha negotiation on time.

The United States and the EU share a common aimof trade liberalization, but have pursued differentapproaches. In the lexicon of the EU, the UnitedStates is pressing to “deepen” the WTO by freeingtrade across the core agenda of market access. TheEU’s distinguishing agenda is to “widen” the WTOmandate by developing new rules to cover moretopics. As one Asian colleague observed, the EU seesthe world through the lens of recent Europeanexperience: it wants gradually to achieve asupranational system of governance for globalization.Yet many developing countries have no wish to add

new topics to the WTO, believing our priority shouldbe to spur more trade and investment. There is a riskthat the EU will trade off cuts in barriers in order toadd rules and institutions.

At Doha, the United States helped bridge the gapbetween “deepeners” and “wideners” because the EUneeds progress on its broader agenda to achievemovement on agriculture, which is critical for manydeveloping countries. The United States willcontinue to work to accommodate the EU’sobjectives, as long as the EU is committed toliberalizing trade in agriculture, goods and services.We need to ensure that any new negotiating topicsand rules enhance free markets, strengthentransparency in the WTO and facilitate trade, whilerespecting the prerogatives of sovereign states.Another European perspective might also be borne inmind — Hayek’s “spontaneous order,” which advisesthat rules should be forged first through markets,rather than through government controls.

Even if America and Europe cooperate, the Dohaagenda will still be hard to achieve. (Sadly, Japan’smercantilist, zero-sum approach to trade is typifiedby its recent agriculture proposal, which argued forcutting its quota on imported rice.) It is encouragingto find a network of trade ministers, in bothdeveloping and developed countries, workingtogether.

Yet any decision by the WTO requires a consensusamong its 144 members. Any one country — forwhatever political or economic reason — can stop theDoha agenda in its tracks. We will not passivelyaccept a veto over America’s drive to open markets.We want to encourage reformers who favor freetrade. If others do not want to move forward, theUnited States will move ahead with those who do. Itis time for others to tell us when they are ready toopen their markets, to table proposals to liberalizeand to match their criticism with commitment.

Some trade specialists cavil about America’s use ofleverage to push for greater openness. I urge them tobroaden their perspective. We want to strengthen thehand of the coalition pressing for freer trade. It

19

would be fatal to give the initiative to naysayersabroad and protectionists at home. As we have seenin the League of Nations, the U.N., the InternationalMonetary Fund and the World Bank, internationalorganizations need leaders to prod them into action.

NAFTA AND ITS IMITATORS

To multiply the likelihood of success, the UnitedStates is also invigorating a drive for regional andbilateral free-trade agreements (FTAs). Theseagreements can foster powerful links amongcommerce, economic reform, development,investment, security and free societies. The NorthAmerican Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) not onlyalmost tripled American trade with Mexico andnearly doubled its trade with Canada, but also madeall three members more competitive internationally.NAFTA proved definitively that both developed anddeveloping countries gain from free-tradepartnerships. It enabled Mexico to bounce backquickly from its 1994 financial crisis, launched thecountry on the path of becoming a global economiccompetitor, and supported its transformation to anopen democratic society.

Ironically, a number of European publications thathave criticized America’s “competitive liberalization”through regional and bilateral free-trade negotiationswere noticeably silent when the EU negotiated 30such pacts; the United States only has three, but weare hard at work.

Since Congress granted the president fast-trackauthority, the United States has signed FTAs withSingapore and Chile and started talks for FTAs withthe five nations of the Central American EconomicCommunity, the five countries of the SouthernAfrican Customs Union, Morocco and Australia. Wehelped push forward the negotiations among 34democracies for a Free-Trade Area of the Americas.We will co-chair this effort, with Brazil, until it issuccessfully concluded.

Our free-trade agenda conveys signals. We are opento free trade with all regions — Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Arab world — and

with both developing and developed economies. Wewant to expand commercial links with thesecountries. Equally important, all our free-tradepartners, though varying greatly in size anddevelopment, are showing political courage at homeby making the case for open markets and connectingthose ideas to economic reforms. These aregovernments we want to help.

One Europe-based publication recently claimed thatthe United States “has little to offer other countries”because America’s barriers are relatively low already.But the “market test” is proving such commentariesmistaken, as countries are lining up to negotiateFTAs. Countries recognize that assured access to thehuge, dynamic American market is a valuableeconomic asset. Because American FTAs arecomprehensive, with high standards, our FTApartners stand out as good places to invest, as stronglinks in a global sourcing chain, or simply aspromising markets in which to do business.

We will work with our FTA partners — through theU.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)and with the multilateral development banks — tolink liberalization to sectoral reforms. For example,we have been discussing with Morocco how tosupport its shift, backed by the World Bank, from theproduction of cereals to fruits and vegetables forexport. For Southern Africa and Central America,our FTAs can encourage regional integration, thereduction of local barriers to regionalcompetitiveness, the development of a larger marketfor investment, and greater political cooperation.Many other countries are working with us on marketand trade reforms simply to prepare for an FTA.

As our FTA negotiation with Singapore showed, ouragreements can also serve as models by breaking newground and setting higher standards. The UnitedStates-Singapore FTA will help advance areas suchas e-commerce, intellectual property, labor andenvironmental standards, and the burgeoning servicestrade. As we work more intensively with nations onFTAs, the United States is learning about theperspectives of good trading partners. Our FTApartners are the vanguard of a new global coalitionfor open markets.

20

These partners are also helping us to expand supportfor free trade at home. Each set of talks enableslegislators and the public to see the practical benefitsof more open trade, often with societies of specialinterest for reasons of history, geography, security, orother ties. There is an old adage in Americanpolitics: “You can’t beat something with nothing.”We want the American debate to be focused on ouragenda of opening markets, not on the protectionists’defensive dogma of closing them.

Whether the cause is democracy, security, economicintegration or free trade, advocates of reform oftenneed to move toward a broad goal step by step —

working with willing partners, building coalitions,and gradually expanding the circle of cooperation.Just as modern business markets rely on theintegration of networks, we need a web of mutuallyreinforcing trade agreements to meet diversecommercial, economic, developmental and politicalchallenges. The United States is combining thisbuilding-block approach to free trade with a clearcommitment to reducing global barriers to tradethrough the WTO. By using the leverage of theAmerican economy’s size and attractiveness tostimulate competition for openness, we will move the world closer toward the goal of comprehensivefree trade. _


21

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001, an essential component of the UnitedStates government’s counter-terrorism strategy

has been to identify, disrupt, and dismantle thefinancial networks of terrorist organizations. Theglobal effort to stop terrorist financing isfundamentally a preventive strategy. Simply stated, ifthe United States, with the support of the globalcommunity, is able to impede the transfer of fundsneeded to finance acts of terror, it can prevent thecommission of future acts of terrorism, and, in theprocess, prevent the killing of thousands of innocentpeople.

In a speech delivered on September 24, 2001,President George W. Bush unequivocally declaredthat the war on terrorism would be waged on thefinancial front:

Today, we have launched the first strike on thefinancial foundation of the global terror network .. . . We will direct every resource at our commandto win the war against terrorists; every means ofdiplomacy, every tool of intelligence, everyinstrument of law enforcement, every financialinfluence. We will starve terrorists of funding, turnthem against each other, rout them out of their safehiding places, and bring them to justice.

THE LEGAL UNDERPINNING TO U.S. ANTI-TERRORIST ACTION

On September 23, 2001, the President directed thefirst strike against the financiers of terror by issuingExecutive Order 13224. That order, issued under theauthority of the International Emergency EconomicPowers Act (IEEPA), declared a national emergencywith respect to acts and threats of terrorismcommitted by foreign terrorists against the UnitedStates. The order allows the United States to freezeassets subject to U.S. jurisdiction and prohibitstransactions by U.S. persons with any designatedperson or entity based on their association withterrorists or terrorist organizations. Specifically, theorder authorizes blocking all U.S. assets andtransactions of foreign individuals, groups, andentities designated by the President, the Secretary ofState, or Secretary of the Treasury as committing orposing a significant risk of committing acts ofterrorism threatening the U.S. national security,foreign policy or economy. The order also permitsblocking the property of persons found to providesupport to, or to be otherwise associated with, any ofthese designated foreign persons, and forbids U.S.persons from doing business with those individuals.Executive Order 13224 includes an annex that lists 27organizations and individuals whose assets areblocked because of their ties to terrorism.

THE GLOBAL EFFORT TO STOP TERRORIST FINANCINGBy Jimmy Gurulé

Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School, University of Notre Dame

The ultimate success in the fight against those who would commit acts of terrorismrequires the active support of all nations, says Jimmy Gurulé, Professor at Notre DameLaw School and former Under Secretary of the Treasury during the first two years of theBush administration. Gurulé says that international alliances against terrorism are crucialsince the overwhelming bulk of terrorist assets and cash lie outside the United States:“Terrorist financing networks are global, and consequently, efforts to identify and denyterrorists access to funds must also be global.”

22

RESULTS

Under Executive Order 13224, $138 million in assetshave been blocked against 281 individuals andentities. This includes the assets of organizationalleaders such as Usama bin Laden, his key lieutenantsand terrorist operatives, financiers, andintermediaries around the globe. Moreover, theExecutive Order applies to all global terrorists andincludes al-Qaeda as well as other terroristorganizations such as the Real IRA, Shining Path,ETA, the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, Hamas,and Hizballah, among others. Of the $138 million inassets blocked, $36.4 million have been blocked inthe United States through July 2003. Theinternational community is responsible for blocking$101.6 million.

However, progress in the war against terroristfinancing should not be measured solely in themillions of dollars of assets blocked. As the result ofthe public designation process, the internationalbanking system is no longer safe for terrorists to use.Thus, terrorists must resort to nonconventional, lessreliable, and more easily detectable methods oftransferring money globally.

These anti-terrorist financing efforts have further hada deterrent effect. Many who formerly providedfinancial support for terrorism have backed away forfear of being designated a terrorist and having theirbank accounts frozen. Additionally, entire terroristfunding networks have been dismantled, making itmore difficult for terrorist organizations to raisemoney to finance terrorist operations. For example,in November 2001, the U.S. blocked the assets of theBenevolence International Foundation, a corruptIslamic charity which for years funneled money to al-Qaeda.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS

Terrorist financing networks are global, andconsequently, efforts to identify and deny terroristsaccess to funds must also be global. Moreover,because the overwhelming bulk of terrorist assets,cash flows, and evidence lie outside the United

States, international alliances against terrorism arecrucial. Recognizing the importance of internationalcooperation, the United States has worked not onlythrough the United Nations on blocking assets, butalso through multilateral organizations and on abilateral basis to promote international standards andestablish protocols for combating terrorist financing.It should further be noted that currently 172 countriesand jurisdictions have issued blocking orders againstsome or all of the names on the Treasury list ofterrorist financiers.

UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations has played a key role in theglobal strategy to starve the terrorists of funds. OnSeptember 28, 2001, the United Nations SecurityCouncil unanimously adopted Resolution (UNSCR)1373, requiring all member states to “[f]reeze withoutdelay funds and other financial assets or economicresources of persons who commit, or attempt tocommit, terrorist acts.”

On January 16, 2002, the Security Council adoptedResolution 1390, which modifies and continues theinternational sanctions against the Taliban, Usamabin Laden, and al-Qaeda as set forth by UNSCRs1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000). Resolution 1267 wasadopted on October 15, 1999, and targeted theTaliban by freezing its funds and other financialresources and those of any entity owned or controlledby it. On December 19, 2000, the Security Counciladopted Resolution 1333 requiring member states tofreeze “without delay” the funds and other financialassets of Usama bin Laden and al-Qaeda associates.

Resolution 1267 further established a U.N. SanctionsCommittee, consisting of all members of the SecurityCouncil, which has proven to be a very usefulmechanism for internationalizing asset freezesagainst the Taliban, Usama bin Laden, al-Qaeda andthose linked or associated with them. The names oftargeted individuals and entities are submitted to the1267 Sanctions Committee for inclusion in thecommittee’s list of terrorists and terrorist financiers.Once a name is placed on the U.N. list, member statesare obligated to freeze the funds and assets locatedwithin their respective countries.

23

The U.S. has worked closely with the 1267 SanctionsCommittee. For example, prior to being publiclydesignated under Executive Order 13224, the namesof individuals and entities are submitted to the 1267Sanctions Committee through the U.S. Mission to theU.N. If no member of the Sanctions Committeeobjects, the U.S. government names are added to theU.N. list, and the assets of the suspected terroristfinanciers are blocked worldwide.

EUROPEAN UNION

The European Union and the United States haveworked closely together to ensure that terroristfinanciers designated by one party are alsodesignated by the other. For example, in August2002, Italy joined the United States in submitting tothe U.N. Sanctions Committee the names of 25individuals and entities linked to al-Qaeda so thattheir assets could be frozen worldwide. Furthermore,in February 2002, the United States joined Spain indesignating 21 individuals linked to ETA, the Basqueterrorist group.

G7/G8

The Group of Seven (G7) Finance Ministers andCentral Bank Governors (the United States, Japan,Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, andCanada) have played an important role in combatingthe financing of terrorism. The G7 issued an ActionPlan on October 6, 2001. In April 2002, it submitteda list of 10 names to the U.N. so that the assets ofthose individuals would be frozen worldwide, and inSeptember 2002 it released a one-year report onterrorist financing.

In June 2002, G8 (the G7 countries plus Russia)Foreign Ministers endorsed a revised set ofrecommendations on counterterrorism, whichincluded a commitment to full implementation ofUNSCR 1373 and the Financial Action Task Force(FATF) eight special recommendations on terroristfinancing.

FATF

Another good example of international cooperationin the war against terrorist financing involves theFinancial Action Task Force (FATF). FATF is thepremier international body dedicated to theestablishment of legal and regulatory standards andpolicies to combat money laundering. Established by the G7 in 1989, FATF has grown to 31 memberstates covering five continents. The fundamentalFATF document is the FATF 40 Recommendations,which represent a set of international standards forcountries to establish an effective anti-moneylaundering regime.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001, the FATF expanded its mandate to includeterrorist financing. Specifically, the FATF articulatedeight special recommendations which, whencombined with the FAFT 40 Recommendations,establish the basic framework to detect, prevent andsuppress the financing of terrorism. One of the eightspecial recommendations encourages countries toimplement legislation to authorize the forfeiture offunds intended to be used to finance terrorism. FATFis monitoring compliance with its recommendations.It has invited members as well as non-members torespond to a questionnaire on compliance with theserecommendations, and is assessing these countries’needs for technical assistance.

Most recently, FATF has established a TerroristFinancing Working Group to oversee FATF’s counter-terrorist financing activities. The Working Group iscurrently chaired by the United States and Spain.

BILATERAL EFFORTS

The United States has worked bilaterally with anumber of other countries in the fight againstterrorist financing. For example, collaborative effortswith Middle East countries have resulted in theUnited Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, and Qatarenacting anti-money laundering legislation. Kuwaitand Saudi Arabia have established government

24

entities to oversee charities and prevent abuse offinancial donations. Additionally, in September2002, Saudi Arabia joined the United States insubmitting to the 1267 Sanctions Committee thename of a Saudi supporter of al-Qaeda so that hisassets could be frozen worldwide.

CHALLENGES AHEAD

As we approach the second year anniversary of theheinous attacks of September 11, 2001, the challengeis to strengthen successful anti-terrorist financing

initiatives and develop new and creative strategies tostarve the terrorists of funds. The internationalcommunity must continue to play a central role inthese efforts. Finally, Islamic donor countries mustassume a leadership role in developing policies,procedures and regulations to govern Islamiccharities and prevent them from being used tounderwrite acts of terror. _

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Government.


25

The American way of life is rooted in thefreedoms and liberty guaranteed by ademocratic government. Recognizing the vital

importance of democracy, the United States is firmlycommitted to helping other governments in theirdemocratic development. Accordingly, the U.S.government and its citizens are actively engagedthroughout the world in helping countries toconsolidate democratic institutions, bolster emergingdemocracies, and shine a light on those governmentsthat deny their citizens basic freedoms and liberty.

The promotion of democracy globally benefits notonly the citizens of recipient countries, but also helpsother democratic nations and the international systemas well. By expanding the global community ofdemocracies and supporting emerging democracies intheir development, the United States seeks to build amore secure and economically prosperous world inwhich individuals can live freely and enjoy healthyand productive lives.

Experience teaches us that democracies are strongerpartners in promoting peace and security, supportingopen and free markets, protecting human rights andfundamental freedoms, and fighting internationalcrime and terrorism. Democracies are betterequipped to avoid man-made humanitarian crises andbetter able and willing to provide political, economic,and civic opportunities for their citizens, and toenable them to reach their full potential.Democracies are tolerant and provide the bestenvironment in which people of diverse faiths,

beliefs, and cultures can live in peace. Democraciesare better stewards of the environment and morecommitted to sustainable development and povertyeradication. In short, it is in the interest of everyonearound the globe to see democracy flourish. TheUnited States is not alone in this belief, and thereforehas scores of partners in this effort.

Democratic goals and values can, of course, befostered in various ways. The U.S. governmentrecognizes and celebrates the many faces ofdemocracy, as this political system takes hold incountries with a variety of ethnic, religious, andcultural backgrounds.

While democratic countries are diverse, their coreelements are consistent and uniform. Democraciesprotect the rights of all citizens and respect thehuman rights and fundamental freedoms of allpeople. Democratic institutions work in the interestof a country’s citizens, are accountable to thesecitizens, and operate in a transparent manner.

The rule of law guides governmental and citizenaction, establishing needed protections andmechanisms for resolving disputes. Governmentalpowers are diffused so as to avoid their undueconcentration in the hands of a single individual orinstitution. More broadly, good governance providesthe assurance that a country’s resources will beshepherded in ways that benefit the populace, andthat people will be free to improve their lives andcontribute to achieving the aspirations of their

SHINING A LIGHT: U.S. EFFORTS TO STRENGTHENDEMOCRACY WORLDWIDE

By Paula J. DobrianskyUnder Secretary of State for Global Affairs

“By supporting emerging democracies in their development, the United States seeks to build a more secure and economically prosperous world in which individualscan live freely and enjoy healthy and productive lives,” says Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky. At the same time, she says America seeks to “shine a light on those governments that deny their citizens basic freedoms and liberty.”

_ PROMOTING DEMOCRATIC IDEALS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

families and societies. A vibrant civil society —which includes free media, active nongovernmentalorganizations, and an educated citizenry — isessential to overall democratic development and toholding governments accountable. Recognizing thata private sphere exists and ensuring that it remainsfree from government regulation is an essentialattribute of a system of ordered liberty.

The United States government utilizes numeroustools to expand the global community of democraticnations and assist emerging democracies. It providedmore than $700 million in the past year to assistdemocracy and governance efforts throughout theworld, including training of judges and lawyers,building the capacity of nongovernmentalorganizations, supporting and educating journalists,helping political party development, monitoringelections, and strengthening the institutions, policies,and practices that create the fabric of a democraticsociety. While much of our support is bilateral, wealso work actively through international organizationsand multilateral lending agencies. We advocate theinclusion of key democratic principles — such as thepromotion of transparency, accountability, active civilengagement, and civic education — in multilateralprograms.

At the same time, the United States continues to raiseits voice on behalf of those whose voice is silenced.Our government has spoken out against thoseregimes that deny citizens the right to express theirviews or practice their religion, select theirgovernment freely, or to hold governmentsaccountable for protecting citizens’ best interests.Working individually and in multilateral fora, such asthe U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the UnitedStates has been a consistent advocate for respect ofinternational standards of human rights. The StateDepartment’s annual Country Reports on HumanRights Practices shed light on the progress beingmade on governments’ commitment to protecting thefreedoms that are at the very heart of democracy.

Organizations like the National Endowment forDemocracy (NED) have been stalwarts for advancingdemocratic principles for 20 years. Their work,including building the capacity of local organizationsto carry the mantle of change, has been a major

engine of growth in the democracy movement. Inmany countries where the government has continuedto refuse to be responsive to its citizenry, the UnitedStates supports nongovernmental organizations andactivists that are fighting for the most basic principlesof freedom and liberty. The United States recognizesthe essential nature of these voices in helping othersknow their right to be governed well and to have a say in the development of their families, societies and countries.

In exceptional cases, where government oppressionhas reached extreme levels, the United States hasbeen willing to utilize various forms of pressure,including economic sanctions, travel bans, andcriminal indictments of guilty officials to helppromote change. U.S. policy toward the Burmesemilitary regime is a good example of this approach.In carrying out these pro-democracy initiatives, theUnited States seeks to engage the support of othercountries and of the appropriate regional and globalorganizations.

In addition to vigorous public statements, bilateralassistance and actions, and multilateral engagement,there are numerous initiatives that the United Statessupports or leads to accomplish its goal of promotingdemocracy worldwide.

One such initiative is the Community of Democracies(CD), a unique movement that brings togetherdemocratic nations from around the globe to joinforces to bolster democratic development and supportemerging democratic nations. While there arenumerous multilateral organizations in whichcountries work, based on regional, linguistic,religious, or sub-regional ties, this forum bringscountries together based solely on their commitmentto promote democracy. Here countries haverecognized this common bond, committed themselvesto shared principles, and are now putting thoseprinciples into action. The United States hasmaintained its leadership role in this effort, given ourcommitment to utilizing effective multilateralopportunities to promote democracy. We recognizeand support the inherent value of strengtheningcoordination among countries that share basicdemocratic principles.

26

27

Last November in Seoul, at the second ministerialmeeting of the Community of Democracies, morethan 100 nations expressed their support for theSeoul Plan of Action, a dynamic approach to turninginto action the principles enshrined in the 2000Warsaw Community of Democracies Declaration.Countries noted the importance of strengtheningregional cooperation, countering challenges todemocracy, bolstering civic education, promotinggood governance and the rule of law, increasingvolunteerism, and coordinating democracyassistance. As a follow-up this past June, the U.S.government hosted 14 African and Latin Americancountries –- all members of the Organization ofAmerican States or the African Union -– to discusshow these countries and organizations can addressthreats to democracy and consolidate democraticinstitutions throughout their regions. Countryparticipants -– from Botswana to Chile, Jamaica toSenegal -– commended the meeting for allowing afrank and honest exchange of views on the challengesfaced at home and in their regions.

Another major U.S. initiative is the MillenniumChallenge Account (MCA), announced by PresidentBush in February 2002. MCA will increase currentlevels of core development assistance by 50 percentover the next three years, thus providing annualfunding of $5 billion by fiscal year 2006. But this isnot simply an effort to provide more money. It is ameans of showing our commitment to lastingdevelopment progress and it is a historic new vision for development based on the partnership and shared interests of developed and developing nationsalike. It will provide funding to countries thatdemonstrate a strong commitment to ruling justly,investing in their people, and encouraging economicfreedom. Indeed, MCA is focused on accelerating

growth, promoting success and lasting results,thereby further improving the global record ofpoverty eradication.

This initiative recognizes the fundamental importanceof ruling justly, which includes upholding the rule oflaw, rooting out corruption, and protecting humanrights and political freedoms. We place particularvalue on advancing the cause of women and ensuringtheir full political, legal and economic equality.MCA recognizes that sound political and economicgovernance that sustains both freedom andopportunity are the bedrock of stable, prosperousdemocracies. Transparent and accountableinstitutions held together by the rule of law supportboth vibrant and effective public and private sectorsthat are mutually reinforcing in improving livingstandards. The MCA illustrates that the UnitedStates’ commitment to democracy is a consistentthread throughout our foreign policy goals.

In numerous multilateral fora, such as the WorldSummit for Sustainable Development, we haveworked with other countries to ensure that progresson the democratic front is actively integrated intooverall development. It is central to our key foreignpolicy priorities, such as the U.S.-Middle EastPartnership Initiative and our engagement in Iraq andAfghanistan. The United States recognizes that thiswill be the best hope for lifting people out of poverty,ending human rights abuses, and allowing people toclaim their futures.

The United States will continue to work withgovernments and nongovernmental organizations thatshare our commitment to making the world moresecure, prosperous, and peaceful. Together we willwork to strengthen democracy worldwide. _


28

In recent years, it has become fashionable tobemoan the setbacks to the process ofdemocratization, the persistence of dictatorial

regimes in the world, and the growing strength ofanti-democratic ideologies and political movements,most prominent among them being Islamicradicalism. But this new pessimism overlooks anextremely significant, if also unexpected,development that contains a hopeful message aboutthe state of democratization in the world and thepossibilities for further progress in the years ahead.Like the dog that did not bark in the Sherlock Holmesmystery, this unexpected development is notsomething that has happened, but rather somethingthat has not happened — namely the absence of a“reverse wave” of authoritarian resurgence followingwhat the political scientist Samuel Huntingtondubbed democracy’s “third wave.”

The third wave refers to the two decades of globaldemocratic expansion that followed the Portugueserevolution in 1974, a period when the number ofdemocracies in the world increased exponentially,from 41 to anywhere from 76 to 117, depending onhow one counts. After each of the preceding twowaves of democratic expansion, the first starting withthe American Revolution and running through WorldWar I, and the second following World War II,democracy suffered a significant retreat. The firstretreat occurred during the 1920s and 1930s with therise of fascism and communism, and the second came

during the 1960s and early 1970s when fragile newdemocracies in Africa and Latin America succumbedto party and military dictatorships.

Something similar was supposed to have happenedover the last decade in the wake of the third wave, butit didn’t. Larry Diamond, relying upon data compiledby Freedom House in its annual Freedom in theWorld survey, has written that “only 14 of the 125democracies that have existed during the third wavehave become authoritarian, and in nine of these,democracy has since been restored.” The picture isnot all bright, since progress toward democracy hasstalled in many post-authoritarian countries, leadingscholars to speak of the emergence of hybrid or semi-authoritarian regimes that combine illiberal features,such as a dominant executive authority that largelycontrols the media and the judiciary, with democratic(or pseudo-democratic) elections. But a standoff is afar cry from a roll-back, and the fact that so manyemerging democracies have not collapsed bespeaks anew reality that bears the seeds of hope.

Certainly one factor that accounts for the resilienceof democracy today is the absence of anantidemocratic ideology with universal aspirations, ascommunism and fascism were in the past, that offersa rival alternative to democratic universalism. Butthere is an even more important factor, one thatanimates the principle of democratic universalism inthe everyday life of people around the world and, by

BUILDING A WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRACY:THE ROLE OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

By Carl GershmanPresident, The National Endowment for Democracy

The National Endowment for Democracy [NED] supports hundreds of groups throughoutthe world that are engaged in “virtually all of the areas of work that contribute to thepromotion of democracy,” says Carl Gershman, President of the NED since 1984. TheEndowment is a private, nonprofit organization created in 1983 to strengthen democraticinstitutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts. The Endowment isgoverned by an independent, nonpartisan board of directors. With its annualcongressional appropriation, it makes hundreds of grants each year to support pro-democracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union.

so doing, also validates its authenticity. This factor isthe presence in every culture and region of the worldwhere democracy is weak or nonexistent ofgrassroots democratic movements composed ofordinary people who are struggling and sacrificing,often at great risk to their own safety, to buildsocieties that respect the right of all people to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Such movements represent a new agent of change inthe world, and also a powerful pressure against thereturn of dictatorship. Just a quarter of a century agothey hardly existed at all, except for small enclaves ofdissidents in communist countries or isolated “thirdworld democrats” who defied the conventionalwisdom in their insistence that developing countriesneeded and could achieve democracy. But by the1980s the Solidarity movement had emerged inPoland, and throughout Central Europe and even inthe Soviet Union independent cultural and mediagroups started springing up, along with groupspressing for human and minority rights. As the thirdwave gathered momentum, a wide variety of civic anddemocratic reform groups also became active in Asia,Africa, and Latin America, among them the NationalMovement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) in thePhilippines, the Institute for a Democratic Alternative(IDASA) in South Africa, the Human Rights Activistsin Uganda, the women’s organization Conciencia inArgentina, Radio Nanduti in Paraguay, the NationalCivic Crusade in Panama, and the Movement for FreeElections in Chile. Such groups soon began toproliferate by the hundreds and even thousands.

Today these groups exist throughout East and SouthAsia, Latin America, Africa, Central Europe, theEurasian region of the former Soviet Union, and theMiddle East. The National Endowment forDemocracy alone supports hundreds of them engagedin virtually all of the areas of work that contribute tothe promotion of democracy. Many work on humanrights issues, not just monitoring and investigatingviolations and alerting the international communityto abuses, but providing legal aid, educating thepublic, and advocating for legislative and institutionalreforms. Others focus on educating and involvingyoung people in the political process, or motivatingand empowering women by training them in the newcommunications technologies, informing them of

their rights, and also protecting them against bothdomestic violence and socioeconomic discrimination.

Civic education is a large area of work, both in theformal school system and in the community, as areconflict resolution and peace education, especially indeeply divided societies. The promotion of independentmedia is also a priority, involving everything fromsustaining independent publications and radios totraining groups in the use of desktop publishing,connecting them to the Internet, training investigativereporters and also developing support systems toprotect them from intimidation and violence.

Political party development is a critically importantarea of work, as are election monitoring by traineddomestic observers and get-out-the-vote drives.There are think tanks and business groups thatencourage good corporate governance, fightcorruption, and aid the development of a legislativeand political environment that will encourageeconomic investment and growth. And there are alsotrade unions that defend the rights of workers andgive them a voice in shaping the governmental andinternational financial policies that affect their well-being. There are groups that work to strengthen localgovernment and to make government accountable atall levels; while others train civilians in issues ofnational defense to enable them to monitor securitypolicy and discourage the involvement of the militaryin politics.

This by no means exhausts the areas of work or typesof activities carried out by nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) throughout the world. It isespecially important to note that these activities aredeveloped and initiated by the groups themselves andare therefore tailored to address the specific problemsin each country and local situation. Thus, incountries ruled by dictatorships, the programs focuson defending human rights and promoting the freeflow of information, which are the most relevant andfeasible kinds of activities in closed systems. Insemi-authoritarian countries, programs tend to focuson defending the political space available toindependent NGOs and media, empowering civilsociety and linking it more closely to democraticpolitical groups and parties, thereby developing amore united opposition as a counterweight to the

29

30

dominant state. In emerging democracies theemphasis is on fighting corruption, monitoring theperformance of public officials and makinggovernment accountable to the society, andstrengthening the rule of law. And in war-torn andpost-conflict societies, NGOs focus on curbingviolence, fostering reconciliation, and building aculture of tolerance and respect for pluralism andminority rights. In Muslim countries in the MiddleEast and other regions, many programs focus onpromoting women’s rights and liberal ideas thatreconcile Islam with modern concepts of pluralism,citizenship, and democracy.

As this vast constellation of NGOs has developedover the past decade–and-a-half, a correspondingsystem of donor and support agencies has come intobeing in the established democracies. Governmentdevelopment agencies now provide democracyassistance, as do embassies and even foreignministries. Multilateral agencies have also becomeinvolved, including the United Nations DevelopmentProgram and other parts of the U.N. system, as wellas regional bodies such as the Organization ofAmerican States, the European Union, and theOrganization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.These governmental and multilateral agencies workprimarily on issues of governmental reform, thoughthey also provide help to NGOs. But governmentsoften find it difficult to support independent NGOs,so this function is increasingly being performed by agrowing array of publicly funded democracy andparty foundations like the NED and its four coreinstitutes, which represent the two major U.S.political parties, the trade union movement and thebusiness community. Such foundations now exist inmost European countries and in Canada, and the firstAsian foundation has just been established in Taiwan.In addition, there are many privately fundedfoundations that play an important role in this field,especially the Ford Foundation and the foundationsestablished by the philanthropist George Soros.

The growth of democracy organizations in the post-communist and developing countries and of supportagencies in the established democracies is an entirelynew feature of the architecture of contemporarypolitics. It is still too early to judge the impact ofthese new structures of cooperation, though it isprobably safe to say that they have increased thedemocratic pressure from below on governments inboth authoritarian and post-authoritarian societies,thereby forcing reforms that might not haveotherwise been implemented and also restraininggovernments from taking regressive measures. Butmuch more needs to be done, in particular in twobroad areas.

First, the established democracies must find newways to exercise their collective weight in all aspectsof democracy promotion, from developingcoordinated strategies to influence the behavior ofrecalcitrant and corrupt governments to defendingand empowering groups working nonviolently fordemocratic change. The Community of Democracies(CD) offers a new forum where such strategies can bedeveloped, though it remains at a nascent stage.Second, the nongovernmental groups themselvesmust strengthen their capacity to network and aideach other, share experience, defend those who facepersecution and danger, and forge a deeper sense ofcommon purpose regionally and internationally.Here, too, there is a new global initiative, the WorldMovement for Democracy (WMD), which is onlybeginning to develop its structures and potential.

Taken together, the CD and the WMD can bemutually reinforcing, creating the governmentalpressures from above and the nongovernmentalpressures below that will help new democraciesconsolidate their institutions and also stimulatefurther democratic gains. Whether this will lead to afourth wave of democratization is anyone’s guess, buteven progress short of that will make the world amuch safer and more peaceful place. _


U. S. FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 1 • AUGUST 2003U. S. FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

31

We hold these truths to be self-evident,that all men are created equal, that theyare endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights, that among these areLife, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

— American Declaration of Independence,adopted July 4, 1776

Americans asserted their belief in the dignity ofhuman nature as the nation was founded, and sincethen have developed a long tradition of helping theneediest people of the Earth in countless ways —including with soldiers, missionaries, economicadvisers, Peace Corps programs, trade, and studentexchanges.

Few include public health on this list, yet publichealth is among the most vital fronts in America’sengagement with the world. As secretary of Healthand Human Services (HHS), it is my privilege to runa department that performs a critical role inAmerica’s mission of compassion abroad. Publichealth knows no borders and no politics. In recentmemory alone, we have seen AIDS leap from Africainto our own cities; we have seen severe acuterespiratory syndrome (SARS) spread with shockingrapidity from southern China to North America; wehave seen the West Nile virus somehow cross theAtlantic and begin a slow spread across our

continent; and we have seen that a key to controllingtuberculosis in the United States is controlling it inpotential visitors to and from abroad.

Indispensable to our public health efforts, then, is thecooperation, leadership, and engagement of ourpartner nations. The United States can lead andcontribute to the cause of global health, but cannotaccomplish its mission alone.

A prime example of our cooperation with fellownations was seen in our response to the SARSepidemic. To fight this disease, U.S. health officialscooperated with and worked in places like China,Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Weswiftly undertook several measures designed to turnthe tide and defeat the epidemic before it became aserious threat on U.S. soil. Among the most crucialwas the deployment of medical officers,epidemiologists, and other specialists to China. Andon May 7, as part of a presidential initiative to fightSARS, the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment provided $500,000 in emergency fundsto help China procure needed medical equipment todeal with the epidemic.

As a result of this experience, the United States isdeeply committed to enhancing collaboration withChina to strengthen fundamental public healthinfrastructures and improve China’s capacity to

PUBLIC HEALTH KNOWS NO BORDERSBy Tommy G. Thompson

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services

“Global public health, by its very nature, is a multilateral effort,” says Tommy Thompson, the U.S. Secretary for Health and Human Services. Thompson, who was formerly Governor of Wisconsin for 14 years, says in this article that the United States “can lead and contribute to the cause of global health, but cannotaccomplish its mission alone.”

_ G L O B A L V A L U E S

“

32

manage not only SARS, but also other diseases suchas hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and cancer.HHS personnel already have a relationship with theirChinese counterparts in the fight against influenza;we hope to build on these ties and the ties establishedduring the SARS crisis to form a lasting partnershipfor public health.

That’s an effective, committed response. And let meemphasize that it is a response that would beimpossible without the partnership of our Chinesecounterparts. It’s just one way that America isworking with the nations of the world for the sake ofpublic health.

We’re going to build on the lessons we learned fromSARS. The ill effects of delay in the identificationand acknowledgement of this disease are self-evidentand must not be repeated. That’s why the UnitedStates is launching an Early Warning Global HealthInitiative to train laboratory personnel andepidemiologists; improve management andsurveillance; foster communications; and improvelaboratory capabilities. This initiative willcomplement and augment the critical global efforts ofthe World Health Organization’s Global OutbreakAlert and Response Network. We want to provideresources to extend response capabilities to moreregional levels. We also want to provide more publichealth experts from my department to assist withtraining, mentoring, and technology transfer so wecan fill gaps in expertise. Our goal is to build uponpre-existing programs in countries that can show theswiftest progress, for the benefit of entire regions.

We’re not stopping with the Early Warning GlobalHealth Initiative. We’re also moving forward with theHHS Global Health Security Initiative. This initiativeseeks to establish — in strategic areas outside theUnited States — networks of regionally affiliatedpartners with strengthened clinical, epidemiologic,laboratory, and communications capabilities. Thiswill facilitate more timely and effective detection andresponse to biological threats and truly make adifference in the security of all peoples.

Again, these efforts would be simply impossiblewithout the cooperation and vision of our partnernations. Global public health, by its very nature, is amultilateral effort.

Moving beyond SARS and early warning, we are alsoworking with our friends and allies abroad to bringbasic health care to parts of the world that desperatelyneed it. A tremendous example can be found in thenewly free nation of Afghanistan, where the UnitedStates is working with the transitional government tobring hope and health to a long-suffering people.

I’m proud to tell you that this past April I was inKabul to witness the opening of the newlyrefurbished Rabia Balkhi Women’s Hospital. RabiaBalkhi is a critical facility for Afghan women — itadmits nearly 36,000 patients each year and deliversmore than 40 babies each day. The refurbishment —a joint project of HHS, the Department of Defense,and the Afghan government — is only the first step toward bringing health and hope to all Afghan women.

President Bush has asked Congress for $5 million forfurther work at Rabia Balkhi and expansion to fouradditional affiliated facilities outside of Kabul. Wewill provide training for the medical staff and help toimprove the hospital operations at Rabia Balkhi andat the four satellite clinics once the initial needs ofRabia Balkhi have been met. Each one of thesematernal and child health clinics will provide directhealth care to patients, and training to health careworkers at all levels, including physicians, nurses,midwives, and community health workers.

Our goal is to develop a team of trained health careworkers who can address the maternal and childhealth care needs of the entire nation. It’s a smallfirst step. But it is just the first.

When we put together those teaching clinics, andwhen we provide prenatal care to women in remotevillages, we won’t be helping just the women ofAfghanistan. We’ll be helping every man, woman,

33

and child of that ancient land who ever looked at hiscountry, loved it, and wanted to make it a better, freer,more decent place. It could not be done without thehelp of the Afghans themselves or the help of thenations of Europe, Asia, North America, andelsewhere who have committed blood and treasure tosecuring Afghan freedom. Their staunch support istruly indispensable to our common goals.

I want to address one last facet of America’s missionof compassion abroad — the fight against globalAIDS. It’s a mission that’s particularly important tothe President and to the world — for reasons ofsimple humanity.

In the developing world, and particularly in Africa,AIDS threatens peace and stability as it wipes outentire generations, orphans whole communities, andcripples nations. Three million people died fromAIDS last year, and it is estimated that at leastanother 68 million will die in the next two decades.Of those deaths, 55 million will be in Africa. Lifeexpectancy is suffering concurrently. A child born inBotswana, for example, now cannot even expect tosee his 40th birthday.

That’s why the nations of the world, in cooperationwith nongovernmental organizations and localcommunity groups, have come together to establishthe Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis andMalaria. The extraordinary demands of this crisisdemand this extraordinary effort.

The fund is an indispensable component of theworldwide struggle against AIDS. A true public-private partnership, it provides desperately neededfinancial assistance to nations and communities indesperate straits. This assistance shores up healthand medical infrastructures, gives families a fightingchance, and most important, saves lives.

I was honored to be elected chair of the fund this pastJanuary. As chair, I am happy to report the fund hasapproved 153 projects in 92 countries and committedalmost $1.5 billion since April 2002. The fund

has signed grant agreements with 58 countriesamounting to more than $660 million. Of that,approximately $56 million has been disbursed so far,and the pace of disbursement is accelerating rapidly.Just a little more than a year since the fund wasestablished, the first people are receiving anti-retroviral treatment under Global Fund grants in Haiti.

It will take the support and initiative of all nations tosee it through. I’m proud to note that the UnitedStates is helping to lead the way.

For starters, we are the largest single contributor tothe Global Fund. And that’s just the tip of theiceberg. In his State of the Union Address lastJanuary, President Bush announced the EmergencyPlan for AIDS Relief — a five-year, $15 billioninitiative to turn the tide against the globalHIV/AIDS pandemic. This commitment of resourceswill help 14 of the most afflicted countries in Africaand the Caribbean wage and win the war againstHIV/AIDS.

We expect to accomplish a lot with the emergencyplan:

First, we want to prevent 7 million new infections,representing 60 percent of the projected newinfections in target countries. The initiative willinvolve large-scale prevention efforts, includingvoluntary testing and counseling. The availability oftreatment will enhance prevention efforts byproviding an incentive for individuals to be tested.

Second, we want to treat 2 million HIV-infectedpeople. Capitalizing on recent advances in anti-retroviral treatment, the President’s Emergency Planfor AIDS Relief will be the first global effort toprovide advanced antiretroviral treatment on a largescale in the poorest, most afflicted countries.

Finally, we want to provide care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans.

34

The President’s plan will virtually triple ourcommitment to international HIV/AIDS assistance,which now stands at a government-wide base of $1 billion a year.

Let me emphasize that the president’s plan directlyassists the mission of the Global Fund. The planincludes an additional $1 billion for the Global Fund,bringing the U.S. pledge up to $1.65.billion. Ourefforts, and the bilateral efforts of other nations,provide the foundations for the Global Fund’s work.We are all attacking the same problem, we are allserving the same people, and we are doing it together.

Our vision for the world, like our vision for ournation, is expansive, optimistic, and exciting. And

our mission of compassion abroad is nothing less andnothing more than the simple impulse of humankindness. History, conscience, and our preciousheritage as Americans demand no less from us. Asformer President Ronald Reagan once said: “It is upto us ... to work together for progress and humanityso that our grandchildren, when they look back at us,can truly say that we not only preserved the flame offreedom, but cast its warmth and light further thanthose who came before us.”

Working together with our friends, allies, andpartners across the globe, we will fulfill this charge. _


35

An expanding global population, rapidconversion of critical habitat to other uses,degradation of critical air, water, and land

resources, and the spread of invasive species to non-native habitats pose a serious threat to the world’snatural resources and to all of us who depend onthem for food, fuel, shelter, medicine, and economicand social well-being. Many environmental problemsrespect no borders and threaten the health, prosperity,and even the national security of Americans. Whenpeople around the globe lack access to energy, cleanwater, food, or a livable environment, the economicinstability and political unrest that may result can befelt at home in the form of costly peacekeeping andhumanitarian interventions or lost markets. Pesticidecontamination of food and water, polluted air, andinvasive plant and animal species can take their tollon our welfare and economy. Policies that distortmarkets and provide incentives for unsustainabledevelopment intensify the problems. Addressingthem and achieving sustainable management ofnatural resources worldwide require the cooperationand commitment of all countries.

In a world where half the human race — 3 billionpeople — live on less than $2 a day and billions lackadequate access to safe water, sanitation, andelectricity, responsible policy must promotesustainable development. This means achievingsocial and economic development while protectingthe environment.

As recognized by the 2002 World Summit onSustainable Development (WSSD), good governancewithin countries and internationally is essential.Sustainable development cannot be achieved wherecorruption is pervasive, markets closed, privateproperty unprotected, and private contractsunenforceable. Developed and developing countriesalike require a foundation of good governance inwhich free markets, sound institutions, and the rule oflaw are the norm.

WSSD underscored that sustainable developmentdepends on the combined efforts of all stakeholders— government, civil society, and the private sector —working through partnerships to achieve results. Atthe summit, the United States launched a number ofcollaborative commitments to action, including fivenew “signature” partnerships in health (HIV/AIDS,malaria and tuberculosis), water (Water for the Poor),energy (Clean Energy Initiative), hunger (Initiative toEnd Hunger in Africa), and forests (Congo BasinForest Partnership), as well as other key initiatives onoceans, biodiversity, sustainable agriculture, housing,geographic information, and education, amongothers.

President Bush has made support for sustainabledevelopment a major goal of his national securitystrategy. On February 5, he presented hisgroundbreaking Millennium Challenge Account(MCA) to Congress, calling it a powerful way to

PROVIDING INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP: RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

By John F. TurnerAssistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

The Bush administration is committed to protecting the world’s natural resources throughresponsible environmental policies that include promoting sustainable development,controlling and reducing the use of toxic chemicals and pesticides, preserving tropicalforests, and pursuing innovative approaches to climate change, according to John Turner,Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and ScientificAffairs. Turner previously served as President and Chief Executive Officer of TheConservation Fund, a national non-profit organization dedicated to public-privatepartnerships to protect land and water resources.

36

“draw whole nations into an expanding circle ofopportunity and enterprise.” The $5 billion MCA,pending congressional approval, will be based ongenuine partnerships between the United States andthose developing countries that govern justly, investin their people, and promote economic freedom. TheMCA will build on our international leadership infinancial support for sustainable development. Inaddition, the United States has long been the largestcontributor to the Global Environment Facility(GEF), the world’s leading financial institutionfocusing on global environmental benefits fordeveloping countries. This administration recentlypledged to raise our contribution to the GEF to $500million over the next four years.

The United States plays a leading role in internationalenvironmental policy. We are active in efforts tocontrol toxic chemicals around the world. We haveled the way in integrating environmental andeconomic policy, in part by incorporatingenvironmental agreements into free trade agreements.The United States is active in efforts to preservecritical habitats, and in the protection of endangeredand threatened species. Around the world, in moreways than can be summarized here, we work to keepdevelopment, trade, and environmental protection ontrack. Our goal is a more prosperous world, onehealthy for its people, with room for the sustainableecosystems that provide habitats for people andwildlife around the globe.

The United States is a key player in internationalinitiatives to reduce the use of toxic chemicals andpesticides. It has led efforts to conclude theStockholm Convention, a treaty to deal withpersistent organic pollutants (POPs). POPs are toxicchemicals that persist in the environment for longperiods, and are transported globally through theatmosphere and oceans. The United States and manydeveloped countries have phased out the mostproblematic POPs, but they continue to be used inlarge quantities elsewhere. The StockholmConvention calls for a virtual phase-out of the 12most hazardous POPs, plus others that may be listedin the future. This administration has attached a high

priority to ratification of the Stockholm Conventionand is working hard to obtain the advice and consentof the U.S. Senate and the enactment of itsimplementing legislation.

We have also been working multilaterally to addressthe worldwide effects of mercury emissions.Mercury accumulates as it moves up the food chain;it is found in high concentrations in certain species.People living in the Arctic are at particular risk,because they rely on diets of fish and marinemammals with very high concentrations of mercury.Earlier this year, the United States led an effort to setup a program to help developing countries reducemercury emissions, especially from power andchemical plants. Over the past two years, the UnitedStates has provided about $1 million in funding forthis effort.

Through its work on trade and the environment, theUnited States has helped advance the integration ofeconomic and environmental policy. In the early1990s, the United States was the first country topropose inclusion of environmental components in atrade agreement, the North American Free TradeAgreement. Over the past two years, thisadministration has worked to ensure that our freetrade agreements (FTAs) with a growing number ofcountries include mutually supportive environmentalcooperation agreements. When we recentlyconcluded FTAs with Chile and Singapore, we alsosigned agreements that will support their efforts toimplement strong environmental policies.

We have been increasingly active in forestconservation. In a recent EnvironmentalInvestigation Agency special report on illegal timbertransshipped through Singapore, a lead articlehighlighted “U.S. Leadership on Illegal LoggingIssues.” This administration has made illegal loggingand associated trade and corruption a global priority.In 2001, the United States was a lead sponsor of aForest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerialhosted by Indonesia and the World Bank. Thehistoric declaration from the ministerial providedfresh political will and commitment to address these

37

issues. An African Forest Law and GovernanceMinisterial is planned for October in Yaounde,Cameroon. Additionally, planning for a LatinAmerican ministerial is underway.

In 2002, President Bush directed Secretary of StateColin Powell to “develop a new initiative to helpdeveloping countries stop illegal logging, a practicethat destroys biodiversity and releases millions oftons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.” Inresponse, we have devised a strategic initiative toassist developing nations in combating illegallogging, associated trade, and corruption in the forestsector.

One of my bureau’s first priorities was to develop amajor partnership on forests. We started apartnership based on a South African proposal for aninitiative in the Congo Basin. We announced thepartnership at the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment held in Johannesburg in September2002. The Congo Basin Forest Partnership stands asone of the summit’s success stories. It will helpcentral Africa preserve threatened forests andendangered wildlife and address poverty. Thepartnership is a remarkable achievement — the firsttime 29 governments, international organizations, andenvironmental and business interests have joined tomeet our goal of sustainably managing tropicalforests. We hope to provide the people of the regionwith a sustainable livelihood, stronger institutions,improved natural resource governance, and networksof parks and protected areas.

The Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA)authorizes the United States to negotiate debtreduction and debt-for-nature swaps to help protectforests in developing countries. In return forspecified debt relief, partner countries agree to spendan equal amount on local forest conservation. TheTFCA agreements already concluded will generate$60.3 million for forest conservation activities in sixcountries over the life of the agreements.

Often referred to as the rainforests of the sea, coralreef ecosystems are among the most biologically

diverse on Earth, with a higher species density thanany other. In addition to being critical fish habitat,reefs provide food and employment, protect coastalareas, and are a major tourist destination. In responseto ongoing degradation of reefs, the United States hasworked with other countries to establish theInternational Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI). One of thefirst partnerships of its kind, ICRI has become adriving force for international efforts to protect coralreef ecosystems by mobilizing governments andstakeholders, and to improve scientific reefmanagement.

The Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna(CITES) is among the oldest and most successfulinternational environmental treaties. Over the years,CITES has helped protect dozens of species —including elephants, crocodiles, whales, and tigers —some of which have been brought back from the edgeof extinction. A founding member, the United Statescontinues to play an active role. In November 2002,at the Twelfth Conference of the Parties, the UnitedStates opposed the relaxation of protections forMinke and Bryde’s whales. We expressed concernover resumed trade in African elephant ivory, andendorsed a carefully controlled export program toallow certain countries to gain resources formanagement of their elephant populations. We alsoaddressed trade in Bigleaf Mahogany and ChileanSea Bass, two species of commercial importance, todefend them against illegal logging and overfishing.

President Bush has committed the United States toinnovative new approaches to climate change. TheBush administration is pursuing measures that willreduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions, relativeto the size of the economy, by 18 percent over thenext decade. This strategy will demonstrate U.S.leadership by slowing emissions growth and, as thescience justifies, stopping and then reversing thatgrowth. During the past 14 years, the United Stateshas led the world in climate change research,investing more than $20 billion. To maintain U.S.leadership, the Bush administration is working withpartner countries on clean energy technologies,

38

including hydrogen, fuel cells, clean coal technology,and carbon capture and storage. The United Statescontinues to work to advance the U.N. FrameworkConvention on Climate Change, which is intended tostabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level thatwould prevent dangerous human interference with theclimate. The United States is also a leading supporterof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,the pre-eminent international body dealing withscientific, technical, and socio-economic informationon climate change.

Since June 2001, the State Department hasspearheaded U.S. partnerships on climate changewith key countries, covering issues from climatechange science to energy and sequestrationtechnologies to policy approaches. Partners includeAustralia, Canada, China, seven Central American

countries, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, theRepublic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and theEuropean Union. And on July 31 the StateDepartment hosted an Earth Observation Summit.This ministerial-level meeting initiated new efforts todevelop an integrated Earth observation system inorder to improve understanding of globalenvironmental and economic challenges.

Prosperous societies are able to devote more of theirresources to environmental protection, both to protecthuman health and preserve natural habitats. TheUnited States will continue its efforts to promote asustainable future for the Earth’s people, its wildlife,and the many beautiful and vital ecosystems that arethreatened by reckless exploitation. We will not losesight of environmental goals as we develop the wholerange of our policies around the world. _


39

THE INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH OF U.S. NGOSBy Robert Kellett

Online Managing EditorMercy Corps

U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and their counterparts abroad promoteparticipatory democracy, economic development and long-term stability worldwide,according to Robert Kellett, Online Managing Editor for Mercy Corps and a freelancewriter living in Portland, Oregon. Mercy Corps describes itself as a nonprofitorganization “that exists to alleviate suffering, poverty, and oppression by helping peoplebuild secure, productive, and just communities.” The agency’s programs currently reachover 5 million people in more than 30 countries, including the United States.

Ibrahim used to dread the walk. Every day, the11-year-old would wake before sunrise and beginthe lonely trek that took him over the rugged

terrain of his native Eritrea until finally, after threehours and more than 11 kilometers, he would reachhis elementary school just in time for classes to begin.

Tired and exhausted, the only thing that hurt worsethan his calloused, bare feet was the gnawing pain ofhis empty, hungry stomach. Like many children inthis impoverished, drought-ravaged eastern Africancountry, Ibrahim’s parents could only afford to feedhim one meal per day. So he was left to fend forhimself, often attending a full day of classes andwalking more than 20 kilometers back and forth toschool before taking his first bite of food for the day.

Even though he was an honor student and consideredby his teachers to be one of the brightest children inthe entire school, Ibrahim was on the verge ofdropping out.

“I was too hungry and too tired to learn,” he says. “Istayed home to make sure that I got something toeat.”

His dream of someday becoming a doctor was on theverge of ending before he even became a teenager.

In March 2002, Mercy Corps, an Americannongovernmental organization (NGO) headquarteredin Portland, Oregon, began a school-feeding programdesigned to assist children like Ibrahim. Each school

day, more than 54,000 boys and girls throughoutEritrea receive high-energy, nutritious biscuits at theirschools. The results have been nothing short ofphenomenal with dramatic increases in schoolattendance and student performance in schools acrossthe country.

For Ibrahim, the food at school has made a world ofdifference. He is back in school and once againearning the highest grades in his class.

While the school feeding program’s primary goalmight seem obvious — feeding hungry students sothat they can continue their education — there is alsoanother subtler goal that isn’t as easy to see, but inmany ways is just as important. Every day, MercyCorps staff works closely to implement the projectwith staff from Vision Eritrea, a local Eritrean NGOthat focuses on community-based developmentprograms, and the Ministry of Education. Together,they are also helping to train Parent TeacherAssociations (PTAs) so that parents in localcommunities can have more input in their children’seducation and the future of their communities.

This transfer of knowledge will have benefits thatwill last long after the programs that Mercy Corpsand roughly half a dozen other Americanorganizations operate in Eritrea come to an end.

“U.S. NGOs have learned over the years that for anykind of program to be effective, whether it isresponding to an emergency or long-term programs

40

in areas such as health, education, agricultural reformand economic development, there needs to be ahealthy civil society,” says Mercy Corps ExecutiveVice-President Nancy Lindborg. “By working inpartnership with local associations, governmentauthorities, other NGOs and private businesses, webelieve that they can be better positioned to identifyand work towards solutions to their most pressingproblems. The ultimate goal is to help the variousactors in a society interact with one another to solveproblems peacefully for the common good.”

In this age of instantaneous communication whereimages of disasters and war are beamed by satellitesinto homes around the world, it would be easy toassociate the work of U.S. aid agencies only withemergency relief. Around the world, American aidworkers labor under often grueling and difficultconditions to assist individuals and familiesstruggling to survive the aftermath of naturaldisasters and wars. U.S. NGOs provide critical food,water and medicines that literally save the lives ofhundreds of thousands each year.

What is often not seen on television and what doesn’toften appear in the newspapers is the work that U.S.NGOs and their local counterparts are doing topromote participatory democracy, economicdevelopment, and long-term stability worldwide.From projects that provide AIDS education in Africato microcredit lending in the Balkans to democracybuilding in the former Soviet Union, U.S. NGOs areplaying a critical role in improving the welfare ofmillions around the world.

InterAction, the largest alliance of U.S.-basedinternational development and humanitariannongovernmental organizations, is made up of morethan 160 member organizations that operateprograms in every developing country in the world.These organizations are helping individuals toovercome poverty, exclusion and suffering byadvancing social justice and basic dignity for all.

“There are myriad examples of how basic assistancehas improved people’s lives,” InterAction PresidentMary McClymont said in an interview last year.“Smallpox was eradicated in 1977; over the last 30

years, illiteracy has been reduced by 20 percent; lifeexpectancy has increased by 20 years; river blindness,which killed hundreds of thousands of peoplethroughout Africa, has been virtually eliminated.These kinds of things are going on all over the worldbecause of development assistance.”

U.S. international NGOs as a rule strive to bepolitically neutral and independent. Most of theNGOs receive funding support for their internationalprojects from a variety of sources includingcorporations, governments, faith groups, the UnitedNations agencies, and international institutions suchas the World Bank. In addition, the organizationscollectively receive close to $3 billion in donationsper year from individual American citizens andprivate donors.

One region where U.S. NGOs have played anespecially important role in helping to empowerindividuals and groups over the past decade has beenin Central Asia. By almost any measure, civil societyin Central Asia has grown, if not flourished, in thedecade following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.From a few hundred scattered, informal groupings ofcitizens during the late 1980s and early 1990s, thenongovernmental sector in Central Asia has grownexponentially, and now encompasses over 10,000organizations of varying sorts, from small,community-based organizations and initiative groupsto large, regional NGOs with full-time staff andmultiple offices.

As a result, individuals and groups who have oftenbeen marginalized — the disabled, single mothers,the elderly, refugees, ethnic minorities — have gaineda new voice through the formation of local NGOsand community groups. In turn, these groups havereceived invaluable support from U.S. NGOs whichhave provided direct funding assistance, training, andtechnical support that has made the voice of CentralAsian NGOs even stronger.

The combined efforts of U.S. and local NGOs can beseen in communities across the Ferghana Valley, animpoverished and ethnically diverse region where thetwisting borders of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan andKyrgyzstan meet. People living in the Ferghana

Valley have experienced their share of hardshipssince the dissolution of the Soviet Union, andcommunities continue to face problems such asaccess to clean water, adequate health care, andcrumbling schools.

Where local and national governments are oftenunable to assist communities to meet their basicneeds, community members have begun to takematters into their own hands. With grants andtechnical support from a number of U.S. NGOs,community groups in the Ferghana Valley areworking to fix schools, overcome ethnic differences,care for disabled children, advocate for legal reform,and lay the foundation for a better future for theirchildren.

In Central America, U.S. NGOs are workingthroughout rural and urban communities tostrengthen local organizations and to help communitymembers to help themselves. In a region that suffersfrom high rates of infant and maternal death, therehas been a recent effort to increase access to healthcare facilities and to provide health education.

CARE, an NGO with headquarters in Atlanta,Georgia, recently completed a maternal health careprogram in Guatemala that has dramaticallyimproved the quality of health care in Baja Verapazand Alta Verapaz. Working with the GuatemalanMinistry of Health, the program helped to trainfemale community members to train others aboutmaternal and child health care.

One of the lasting results of the program is that 53community clinics have been established, helping tomake health care more readily available to 22,400families in remote areas for years to come. Childrenborn in the region today will get a healthier start onlife and grow up in communities that are betterequipped to provide for their future.

Ultimately, any development program, whether itinvolves health care in Central America or hunger inAfrica, can only be successful if it is sustainable longafter U.S. NGOs leave an area. In countries aroundthe world, a broad range of U.S. NGOs are workingside-by-side with communities, local NGOs,governments, and individuals to lay the foundationfor a more just, prosperous, and peaceful world. Theresults of these collaborations are clearly being seentoday and they will be felt by people around theworld for years to come. _

The following Web sites provide general informationabout the work of U.S. international NGOs:

www.interaction.orgwww.alertnet.orgwww.reliefweb.int


41


42


Bose, Meena. SHAPING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY-MULTILATERALISM VS. UNILATERALISM.Foreign Policy Association/Princeton Town HallMeeting, Princeton, NJ, May 9, 2003.

Carothers, Thomas. PROMOTING DEMOCRACYAND FIGHTING TERROR (Foreign Affairs, vol. 82,no. 1, January/February 2003, pp. 84-97)

Cowen, Tyler. THE FATE OF CULTURE (The WilsonQuarterly, vol. 26, no. 4, Autumn 2002, pp. 78-84)

Crossette, Barbara. “Alone or Together: The U.S. andthe World” in GREAT DECISIONS 2003. New York:Foreign Policy Association, 2003. 112p.

Daalder, Ivo H.; Lindsay, James M. THE GLOBALIZATIONOF POLITICS: AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY FORA NEW CENTURY (The Brookings Review, vol. 21,no. 1, Winter 2003, pp. 12-17)

Daalder, Ivo H.; Lindsay, James M.; Steinberg, James B.HARD CHOICES: NATIONAL SECURITY AND THEWAR ON TERRORISM (Current History, vol. 101, no.659, December 2002, pp. 409-413)

Denoon, David. SHAPING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY-MULTILATERALISM VS. UNILATERALISM.Foreign Policy Association/Princeton Town HallMeeting, Princeton, NJ, May 9, 2003.

Diamond, Larry. UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY?(Policy Review, no. 119, June/July 2003, pp. 3-25)

Feldman, Stacy. PROMOTING DEMOCRACY(Journal of International Affairs, vol. 56, no. 2, Spring2003, pp. 149-156)

Gaddis, John Lewis. A GRAND STRATEGY OFTRANSFORMATION (Foreign Policy, no. 133,November/December 2002, pp. 50-57)

Il-whan, Oh. EXERCISING AMERICANINTERNATIONALISM: U.S.-NORTH KOREA

RELATIONS DURING THE BUSHADMINISTRATION (East Asian Review, vol. 14, no. 3,Autumn 2002, pp. 3-20)

Kugler, Richard L. A DISTINCTLY AMERICANINTERNATIONALISM FOR A GLOBALIZED WORLD(U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda: National Security Strategy:A New Era, vol. 7, no. 4, December 2002, pp. 36-40)

Legraine, Philippe. CULTURAL GLOBALIZATION ISNOT AMERICANIZATION (The Chronicle of HigherEducation, vol. 49, no. 35, May 9, 2003, pp. B7-B10)

Lieber, Keir A.; Lieber, Robert J. THE BUSHNATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY (U.S. ForeignPolicy Agenda: National Security Strategy: A New Era,vol. 7, no. 4, December 2002, pp. 32-35)

Muravchik, Joshua. THE BUSH MANIFESTO(Commentary, vol. 114, no. 5, December 2002, pp. 23-30)

Nau, Henry R. AT HOME ABROAD: IDENTITY ANDPOWER IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University, 2002. 314p.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. THE PARADOX OF AMERICANPOWER: WHY THE WORLD’S ONLYSUPERPOWER CAN’T GO IT ALONE. Oxford, UK:Oxford University, 2002. 240p.

Record, Jeffrey. THE BUSH DOCTRINE AND WARWITH IRAQ (Parameters, vol. 33, no. 1, Spring 2003,pp. 4-21)

U.S. National Security Council. “Overview of America’sInternational Strategy” in THE NATIONALSECURITY STRATEGY OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA. Washington: Government PrintingOffice, September 2002. 35p.

Waller, J. Michael. BUSH DOCTRINE ON FREE-WORLD SAFETY (Insight on the News, vol. 18, no.38, October 15, 2002, pp. 30-32) _

American InternationalismBIBLIOGRAPHY

Please note that the U.S. Department of State assumes no responsibility for the content and availability of the resources listed below; such responsibility resides solely with the providers.

_ A G U I D E T O A D D I T I O N A L R E A D I N G

43

U.N. Commission on Human Rightshttp://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chr.htm

U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO)http://www.unesco.org/

U.S. Agency for International Developmenthttp://www.usaid.gov/

The U.S. and APEChttp://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/apec/

The U.S. and the IMFhttp://www.imf.org/external/country/USA/index.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Foreign AgriculturalServicehttp://www.fas.usda.gov/

U.S. Department of State: Bureau of InternationalOrganization Affairshttp://www.state.gov/p/io/

U.S. Department of State: International Health Affairshttp://www.state.gov/g/oes/hlth/

U.S. Department of State: International InformationPrograms: Community of Democracieshttp://usinfo.state.gov/topical/rights/cd.htm

U.S. Department of State: International InformationPrograms: President Bush on Foreign Affairshttp://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/presbush/foraf.htm

U.S. Department of State: International InformationPrograms: The Middle East: A Vision for the Futurehttp://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/

U.S. Department of State: International InformationPrograms: The U.S. and the U.N.http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandun/

U.S. Department of State: International InformationPrograms: The U.S. in NATOhttp://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/nato/

U.S. Department of State: International InformationPrograms: The World Economic Forumhttp://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/0613uswef.htm

U.S. Department of State: The U.S. and the OAShttp://www.state.gov/p/wha/rt/oas/

U.S. Department of State: The U.S. and the U.N.http://www.state.gov/p/io/un/

U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Viennahttp://www.usun-vienna.usia.co.at/

U.S. Mission to NATOhttp://www.nato.int/usa/

U.S. Mission to the European Unionhttp://www.useu.be/

U.S. Mission to the U.N.http://www.un.int/usa/

U.S. Mission to the U.N. in Genevahttp://usmission.ch/index.html

U.S. Mission to the U.N. in Romehttp://www.usembassy.it/usunrome/

U.S. Peace Corpshttp://www.peacecorps.gov/

U.S. Trade and Development Agencyhttp://www.tda.gov/

World Health Organization: U.S.http://www.who.int/country/usa/en/ _

American InternationalismKEY INTERNET SITES

Please note that the U.S. Department of State assumes no responsibility for the content and availability of the resources listed below; such responsibility resides solely with the providers.

_ A G U I D E T O A D D I T I O N A L R E A D I N G



VOLUME 8 AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE NUMBER 1

AUGUST 2003

AMERICANINTERNATIONALISM

Documents

AMERICAN - State · SHINING A LIGHT: U.S. EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN DEMOCRACY WORLDWIDE 25 By Paula Dobriansky ... to win World War II and its dedication to rebuilding those war …