Atlantic Council

Good evening. Thank you, Henry, for that kind introduction. Your words remind me of the definition of a diplomat: A man who always remembers his wife’s birthday – but never remembers her age.

I also want to thank the Atlantic Council for this fine award. By honoring me, you honor the work that News Corporation’s 61,000 employees are doing to connect people across oceans, borders, and cultures. And you underscore the importance of a strong private sector for a free society.

I also want to thank the Atlantic Council for this fine award. By honoring me, you honor the work that News Corporation’s 61,000 employees are doing to connect people across oceans, borders, and cultures. And you underscore the importance of a strong private sector for a free society.

Few organizations have done more for the preservation of our freedom than this Council. Tonight I want to commend Fred Kempe … General Jim Jones … the Council Board … and all the Council members for the important work you are doing. This Council was founded in the years following World War II. Statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic recognized that the defense of freedom would require the active engagement of a new generation of leaders. By working to keep that Alliance strong, you have helped the West prevail against Soviet communism – and ensure the advance of democracy from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Today we can be tempted to bask in our achievements – and wax nostalgic about all we have been through.

But this is no time for nostalgia. At this moment in our history, the Alliance that has been built up over decades now finds itself threatened on several fronts:

First, by the growing appeal of protectionism on both sides of the Atlantic …

Second, by the terrorists who target civilians in all our countries …

And finally, by the crisis of confidence in a Europe that is losing its faith in the values and institutions that have kept us free.

We see this crisis of confidence in many areas. Yet nowhere is it more apparent than in the failure of nerve we are seeing in Afghanistan. After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, it was clear that America and its allies needed to deprive al Qaeda of its safe haven. It was clear that we needed to help the Afghan people replace the Taliban with a free government that would build a more hopeful future for its citizens.

Unfortunately, far from reflecting our unity, Nato’s entry into Afghanistan has exposed its divisions. Instead of standing together as full and equal partners, a handful of Alliance members are bearing the brunt of the fighting. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that the lack of equal burden sharing threatens the future of the Alliance. And he is right.

We must face up to a painful truth: Europe no longer has either the political will or social culture to support military engagements in defense of itself and its allies. However strong NATO may be on paper, this fact makes NATO weak in practice. And it means that reform will not come from within.

Those who want a reformed NATO must look to the outside. In other words, we need to transform this Alliance from a community formed around a map to a community based on common values and a willingness to take joint action in defense of these values.

Those who want a reformed NATO must look to the outside. In other words, we need to transform this Alliance from a community formed around a map to a community based on common values and a willingness to take joint action in defense of these values.

In short, a strong and successful Atlantic Alliance will have to ground itself more on shared principles rather than accident of geography. And we need to show we are serious about defending those principles by standing with those who are standing up for them.

NATO’s agreement to invite Albania and Croatia to become members is a welcome start. So is the somewhat weaker commitment that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO at some point in the future.

But we need to go much further. As a rule, when an organization expands, the expansion dilutes its principles. For today’s NATO, it is just the opposite. Expansion is the only hope of invigorating an Alliance weighed down by those who are no longer willing to commit themselves to defend its founding principles.

Around the world, there is no shortage of nations who share our values, and are willing to defend them. I am thinking of countries like Australia, which sent troops to Iraq … Israel, which has been fighting Islamic terrorism almost since its founding … and Japan, which generally follows a more “Western” policy than most of Western Europe.

Other countries have not reached the level of development these countries enjoy. But some are working hard to get there, and would be strong partners down the road. At the very least, the United States needs to support them as they struggle against the dark forces trying to pull them down.

Right now the United States has a test in our own backyard. Colombia is a nation that is fighting poverty, battling the drug lords, and taking on terrorists backed by foreign governments. Its citizens have suffered tremendously from violence, and who want peace and opportunity. And it is being led by a brave and innovative President, who is bringing the rule of law to people who have not known it.

What does this brave President ask of us? He asks that we ratify the trade agreement we have negotiated with his nation.

By ratifying this agreement, we would open an important market for American goods. We would demonstrate to millions in our hemisphere that the path to prosperity lies in freedom and democracy. And we would give strong moral support to a leader struggling to bring hope and opportunity to his people in an important part of the world.

Everyone knows this. Even the New York Times says the Democratic Congress should ratify this trade deal. Instead, Speaker Pelosi has effectively put off the bill by not scheduling a vote. We need to make clear to the leadership in Congress needs to know what killing this trade deal would mean.

Throughout Colombia, a defeat for the trade deal would be confirmation that the United States is not an ally you could count on.

Throughout Latin America, a defeat for the trade deal would be exploited by thugs like Hugo Chavez, who would tell the people, “See, the Americans will never accept you as equals and partners.”

And throughout the world, a defeat for the trade deal would be taken as another sign that the U.S. will not stand by its friends when the going gets tough.

The Mexican ambassador to the United States puts it this way: “The most important geopolitical mistake the United States could do today … is not ratifying that treaty.”

The world is watching. The same values that we are trying to uphold in the Atlantic Alliance are at stake now in Colombia. And if we fail to support them in Colombia, it will be harder to revive them in the Alliance.

Let me conclude with a little story. I was born in Australia … I received my university education in Britain … and I have made my home in America. Over a long and I hope productive life, I have learned that shared values are more important than shared borders.

If we continue to define “the West” or “the Alliance” as a strictly geographical concept, the Alliance will continue to erode. But if we define the West as a community of values, institutions, and a willingness to act jointly, we will revive an important bastion of freedom – and make it as pivotal in our own century as it was in the last.

Thank you for having me. And thank you again for this fine award.

Washington, D.C.
April 21, 2008