Summary

TONY BLAIR SPEECH

Source Archive Films by Getty Images
Title: TONY BLAIR SPEECH
File Number: FSN-282 Beta SP
Color: Color
Type: News
Year: 2006
Description: Continued from FSN-281 - Rest of speech and question answer period at Georgetown University with British Prime Minister Tony Blair then exteriors of University buildings on May 26, 2006. Note - this is quite possibly Blair's last US trip as British Prime Minister. [TRANSCRIPT CONTINUED - British Embassy] I used to think that this problem was intractable. The competing interests are so strong. But I am now sure that we need reform. If necessary, let us agree of some form of interim change that can be a bridge to a future settlement. But we need to get it done. And then we should give the U.N. secretary general new powers over the appointments, for example, to the secretariat. It is absurd that they have to be voted on one by one by the General Assembly. And powers over how the resources of the U.N. are spent. We should streamline radically the humanitarian and development operations so that the U.N. can act effectively as one agency in a country, single U.N. offices with one leader, one country plan, one budget. There's even a case for establishing one humanitarian agency that allows for better prediction of an impending crisis, far swifter action to remedy it, and sees the different aspects from short-term relief to longer term development as linked, not distinct. We should also strengthen the United Nations secretary general's powers to propose action to the Security Council for the resolution of longstanding disputes and encourage him to do so. Second, the World Bank and the IMF, these institutions together play an important role in global stability and prosperity. There is a case that has been argued before for merger. But in any event, there's surely a powerful case for reform. The IMF, and the International Monetary and Financial Committee chaired by Britain's Gordon Brown is developing plans for change. To fulfill its role in ensuring the stability of the international monetary and financial system, the IMF should focus on surveillance both of individual countries and the wider system that is independent of political influence. It must also become more representative of the emerging economic powers and give greater voice to developing countries. And the World Bank must remain focused on fighting world poverty. And, finally: reform, including to appointments to administration, is needed to make the executive board more effective. Third, there is a strong argument for establishing a multilateral system for safe enrichment for nuclear energy. The Atomic Energy Authority would oversee an international bank of uranium to ensure a reliable fuel supply for countries utilizing nuclear power, without the need for everyone to own their own fuel cycle. Fourth, the G-8 now regularly meets as the G-8-plus-5 that should be the norm. And, finally, we need a U.N. environment organization, commensurate with the importance that the issue... (CELLPHONE RINGS) BLAIR: I hope that's not the White House telling me they don't agree with that. (LAUGHTER) I mean, they're out (ph) very quickly, these guys. So I was just wondering if... (LAUGHTER) Finally, we need a U.N. empowerment organization commensurate with the importance the issue now has on the agenda. So I don't for a second underestimate the hazardous task of achieving these changes. But I'm sure it's time to make them. To just give one example as a test case: Sudan. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have died there. The dispute between different groups has every dimension of strife in it -- ethnic, religious, territorial. If it gets even worse, the (inaudible) consequences of Sudan will stretch across the middle belt of Africa and beyond. And we've watched it with intermittent bursts of activity for the past two years -- the seeds of it, of course, were sown years before that. This is not a condemnation of world leaders. On the contrary, most of us have devoted what time we can and are doing so now. But in reality, we can't do it all in today's world. What Sudan needed and needs still is an empowered international actor, the capacity to intervene militarily, and the properly orchestrated humanitarian response. And, in fact, we need this all from the beginning, from years ago. Leaders should do more, but it's the system itself that is at fault, not because of indolence, but because of time. Occasionally, I look at our international institutions and I think, as I do, about our welfare state -- the structures of 1946 trying to meet the challenges of 2006. What's the obstacle to reform? Well, it is that in creating more effective multilateral institutions, individual nations yield up some of their own independence. This is a hard thing to swallow. Let me be blunt: Powerful nations want more effective multilateral institutions when they think those institutions will do their will. What they fear is effective multilateral institutions that do their own will. But the danger of leaving things as they are is ad hoc coalitions for action that stir massive controversy about legitimacy, or paralysis in the face of crisis. No amount of institutional change will ever work unless the most powerful make it work. The European Union doesn't move forward unless its leading countries agree. That's the reality of power, size, economic, military, political weight. But if and where there is a common basis for working, agreed aims and purposes, then no matter how powerful, countries gain from being able to subcontract problems that, on their own, they cannot solve. Their national self-interest becomes delivered through effective communal action. Today, after all the turmoil and disagreement of the past few years, there is a real opportunity to bring us together. We all of us face the common security threat of global terrorism. We all of us depend on a healthy global financial system. All of us, I believe, at least in time, will feel the consequences of the poverty of millions living in a world of plenty. We all of us know that secure and clean energy is a common priority. All of us have an interest in stability. All of us have a fear of chaos. That is the impact of interdependence. Above all, though in too many countries and in too many ways global values are not followed, there is no real dissent, anymore, about their desirability. From the moment the Afghans came out and voted in their first- ever election, the myth that democracy was a Western concept was exploded. The governments of the world do not all believe in freedom, but the people of the world do. In my nine years as prime minister, I have not become more cynical about idealism. I have simply become more persuaded that the distinction between a foreign policy driven by values and one driven by interests is obviously wrong. Globalization begets interdependence. Interdependence begets necessity of a common value system to make it work. In other words, the idealism has become the realpolitik. None of that will eliminate the setbacks, falling short, inconsistencies, hypocrisies that come with practical decision-making in a harsh world. But it does mean that the best of the human spirit -- that which throughout the ages has pushed the progress of humanity along -- is also the best hope for the world's future. Our values are indeed our guide. To make it so, we have to be prepared to think sooner and act quicker in defense of those values. Progressive preemption, if you will. And I believe that there is an agenda for it waiting to be gathered, capable of uniting a world once divided. There would not be a better moment for such reconciliation. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) MODERATOR: We do have some time for some questions. My colleagues have microphones, and we are going to take the questions three at a time. So if you could state your questions succinctly, we will take three at a time, and the prime minister will handle them that way. QUESTION: Yes, Prime Minister Blair, thank you for being here at Georgetown. You've identified four shared global values. What work has been done to define or to hear the definitions of democracy, liberty, tolerance and justice among other countries, especially the developing world, as to what do we mean by these shared global values? QUESTION: It is an honor to be here, and thank you for coming. My question is also regarding this idea of global values. Later this afternoon in my home country of Bolivia there will be a meeting between Mr. Chavez, Evo Morales, and the vice president of Cuba, and they'll probably be declaring themselves as the true speakers or defenders of these true values. And my question is, is this a (inaudible) development? And what can the international community do to provide an alternative to what these gentlemen are doing? QUESTION: Prime Minister Blair, thank you for coming. I'm interested in what you believe how Russia has done in its role as chair of the G-8. And with the summit approaching in July, do you believe it is appropriate that a country like Russia which has rather questionable progress with democracy, if you think it is appropriate that a country like Russia remains in the G-8. That's my question. Thank you. BLAIR: You do not run to glasses for water at Georgetown. It's all these budget cuts. I know it is difficult. (LAUGHTER) In the U.K. now, everyone just drinks out of the bottle. Is that OK here? It's not consider really rude? I just saw people raising their eyebrows as I did that just then. (LAUGHTER) These British barbarians. (LAUGHTER) First of all, I think just to deal with that last question on Russia. I mean, there are issues that we raise with Russia continually on this issue. The only point is that there are also some very important things we need to discuss at the G-8 this year. I mean, not least because of the talks in the Security Council because of Iran and because of the issue of energy security. But I do believe obviously the issues you raised will be important questions for us as well. And I think one of the most important things that we can do -- and this, I think, sort of allows me to segue into the first question as well. I think that most people have basically the same concept around democracy and liberty and tolerance and justice. Now, I know that's a kind of controversial thing to say, because sometimes you people will say, well, look, in the developing world, it's all very well for your guys to talk about it, but you go there and you talk to them. But what I find, because I obviously do discuss this a lot with those in Africa as well as those in Asia and South America. You can fake (ph) different systems of democracy, but I think everyone more or less knows what you mean -- the people vote in the government. And I have never quite understood it -- I mean, there is not another way -- there is not another way of doing it. There are different systems, you can go to first past the post, you can go for P.R. or you can go for first past the post or you can have a congress or a house of parliament, but in the end, the key thing is the people vote in the government. And I think on liberty, it is very simple -- it is a rule of law from an independent judiciary, not, you know, the secret police or whatever. I think the concepts of tolerance as well are quite well understood. I suppose on the question of justice, there is maybe somehow different. Sometimes people justice in a different way. But I think the very thing that most people can agree with -- because there will be differences about the precise nature of economic systems and how just they are -- although I think most people in today's world search for something close to an enlightened form of the market economy. I think that is where most people are, even in the poorest countries. But I think the key thing is that -- and this is where I think the difference is -- is that people in the developing world say you talk about justice, but we have no justice. And that is right. And so, I'm not saying these values are implemented in a universal way, because they obviously aren't. But they should be. And the truth is there are people, particularly in Africa, but in other parts of the world as well, who suffer most chronic injustice as a result of poverty and disease and conflict. And that is why I think we've got a duty to act. But I think the values themselves actually are capable of definition. There is a meeting with Mr. President Chavez and Morales and the president of Cuba as well. I'm just amazed I haven't been invited. I don't know. (LAUGHTER) Actually, the one thing I will say about President Chavez is he's got the best line on insults I've come across in any world leader. (LAUGHTER) Some of the things he's said about me, I haven't heard said about me since I was in -- at school, really... (LAUGHTER) ... or in the House of Parliament. (LAUGHTER) But, not, I think seriously, the question for all of them is do the best by their country. And the issue -- I don't think we should end up, in a sense in a way playing into their hands by sort of panicking about what they are doing. I just think we want in a sense, almost -- we obviously must check them if they're doing irresponsible things in different parts of the world, but I think the most important thing is to say, look, where is your country going to benefit if you turn your back on other people in the region and create trouble there? So I think they are going to have to face up to that. Look, there are many different arguments about Cuba, but if we go back to the idea of the global values -- I mean, why aren't people just allowed to elect the government there, then we can find out what people in Cuba want? Maybe they will elect President Castro maybe they wouldn't. I think there is always dangers in a type of demagogic populism, but I do not think we should get overly fussed by it. I think we should always answer ideas with other ideas, because that is the strongest thing to do. And in the end, time will tell whether these guys do the best for their countries or not. But the decision in the end as to whether they're doing the best shouldn't be made by us, I mean Britain, America. It should be made by their own people in a democratic election. QUESTION: Mr. Blair, when do you think a force should be the only tool of change? Isn't that decision subjective? We all agree on common intentions which may be honorable, but the actions can be communicated. BLAIR: Can you just repeat that? Sorry, will you just repeat that. My apologies. I didn't quite hear the last bit of it. QUESTION: We all agree on common intentions, which may be honorable, but not necessarily translated into actions. So I was wondering when is the decision to use force agreeable? I mean, is the decision subjective? BLAIR: Yep, thank you. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I know that you had mentioned that maybe the G-8 might be an appropriate venue to bring on maybe some of the parties that aren't particularly excited about the Kyoto process. So I was wondering if you could articulate your vision of how that might evolve over the next three to five years, paying attention to two particular questions. One is, how your vision of values might involve both climate change and the developing world? And also, how the technology development that is important as part of our energy security and environmental problems might be encouraged by policies that would be acceptable to the United States in particular? QUESTION: Prime Minister Blair, thank you for coming. Many of the international changes and the global values that you talked about that can bring about international reconciliation focus on governments and the role of governments and international institutions and the changes that they could effect. My question is what university students throughout the country, especially university students here at Georgetown, which are so actively engaged in international issues, what we can do to effect change now, today, instead of waiting for years down the road when we can join the government. (LAUGHTER) BLAIR: Future senators speaking there, I think. (LAUGHTER) The question you raised, sir, that is -- that is the most difficult thing. What you do when you're faced with a threat and you can't get agreement in the international community to act? Now, we faced that over Kosovo. We faced that -- which was in a sense less controversial. We faced it over Iraq, which was very controversial. I think that we need to articulate certain principles around this. And I tried to do that in a speech some time ago. And I also -- I didn't mention this in my speech, but we want to get put into the U.N. Charter also a country's responsibility and the international community's responsibility to protect people. In other words, I think we need to develop the notion that where there is a humanitarian -- not necessarily humanitarian catastrophe in the sense that something has suddenly happened, but where people are just subject to the most unbelievable conditions, there should at least be some capacity in the international community to act. But I think the truth is, you should not act subjectively, if you can put it in that way, until you really have exhausted every means of doing so multilaterally, because there's no doubt at all that to do so multilaterally is more effective in the end. One other thing I think is very difficult -- and this is a real problem which probably you will be studying in Georgetown for many years to come -- the truth is for countries like ours, it is very hard for me ever to foresee a set of circumstances -- I mean, it's possible, and when the Falkland Islands was invaded, it happened. But is was a very, very individual situation there. But for countries like mine, the chances are we will not be fighting battles on our own soil. We will almost always -- our armed forces in the future will be engaged in operations alongside others in circumstances where you are on someone else's territory, probably thousands of miles away from Europe. And I think one of the things we need to do over time is to try to refine the circumstances in which it is right for that action to take place. And one of the reasons for having a more effective U.N. is that that will then bestow great legitimacy when you need to act. On climate change, I will tell you exactly what I think should happen. I think that the Kyoto treaty was important. We will meet our Kyoto targets. We're signed up to the treaty. But I think we've got to be very frank about this. First of all, it stabilizes greenhouse gas emissions. We need to reduce them drastically over the next half century. And any framework that doesn't have America and China and India in it is not really going to be very effective in the end. I mean, that's just the reality of it. So I tried to put together last year at the G-8 a G-8-plus-5 dialogue, which included all -- I mean, the countries there account for around about 70 percent, I think, or slightly more of the emissions. And I began a dialogue about science and about technology, about how we should use those. But I want to see that process grow over time, and I believe in the end, we will have to have a framework with a set of binding conditions in it. And I'll tell you why I think we need to do that. We need to give definition to the direction of policy in order to encourage business and industry as well as governments to take the steps necessary to invest in clean technology. I think it is perfectly possible to develop a massive business and commercial enterprise around clean technology. But people need to know that the days of investment in heavy carbon technology are over. And that can't be done I think in a structured way, unless we have some form of clear, binding framework. And you asked how the values relate to the developing world. Well, I think they relate in this way -- and it also deals in a sense with your second point, and perhaps was meant to, is that as part of this agreement, we need then, if we develop the science and technology, to spread it and to allow developing countries access to it. Now, there will be all sorts of issues to do with military matters and so on which you have to resolve. But in the end, you could never get this issue of climate change dealt with unless America is involved. America won't be involved unless China and India are involved. And actually, to be fair to America, a lot of countries hide behind the American position on this. Because if we take a whole lot of measures in our own countries and you've got these economies that are competing with us. And we're subject to certain restrictions, but they're not, then people worry about the loss of competitive advantage. So I think that the reality is, it isn't going to happen unless it includes the developed and developing countries. And the only way you can make sense of that, to allow China and India to grow, is to allow them access then to the science and technology that we develop. And that's, I think, at the heart of any deal that we can get which takes the place of the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012. And I personally think climate change is -- you know, if we talk about the principle of precaution, I don't really see how you can look at the evidence and not say that as a matter of precaution, we should take action. I think civic society is a big part of it now. I mean, students obviously, but broader than that. To make poverty history, which is the big campaign on global poverty, particularly in Africa, drew in people across university campuses and in the church and civic groups. And I think climate change is an issue upon which people, certainly the younger generation, should feel a sense of commitment and passion. And I also think that something is happening with government, which is the government can't do it on its own anymore. The days of -- it's not that -- I don't mean to get into the political arguments about big versus small government. It is just that the way the world works today, there's a limit to what governments can do. And therefore, part of a problem with modern politics is that we haven't got the right relationship between the politicians in power and the civic society out there that wants to be engaged in this process feels alienated from it. We have not found a bridge there, and there needs to be one. Because otherwise, what happens is people become more and more cynical about politics, and the politicians kind of feel, you know, nothing you do ever sort of gets through to people. So you end up with just the dialogue of the deaf and speaking past each other. You know, I remember the time when I was not interested in politics, because I only got interested in politics when I was about 20, I supposed. Before then, I had a range of other interests. (LAUGHTER) Maybe I should have stuck to them. It would certainly have been more fun. (LAUGHTER) But I can remember the time when I did think that politicians basically had two heads, both with horns growing out of them. And what I have come to realize actually in my time in politics is that most politicians are human beings, which is both a good thing, but it means they have the same frailties and weaknesses. And actually, there is still a kind of pre- or post-war sense of what politics -- government -- can achieve on its own that is out of kilter with the reality of the way the rest of the modern world works.
}