Washington, DC -- U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar received the 2009 World Affairs Councils of America Lifetime Achievement Award tonight. The World Affairs Councils of America is the largest grassroots foreign policy organization in the United States with more than 500,000 participants annually. Past recipients of the award include Secretary Colin Powell, Secretary William Cohen, Secretary James Baker and Congressman Lee Hamilton.
Below is the introduction by Marc Grossman and the remarks Lugar delivered in accepting the award:
Marc Grossman:
It is a great honor and personal privilege for me to present this Lifetime Achievement Award to Senator Lugar.
Before I introduce our honoree, let me thank the major sponsors of tonight’s event, Northrop Grumman Corporation and Chevron Corporation. Thank you for your support of the World Affairs Councils of America. We are grateful to you. May I also express my thanks to the leadership and staff at the Mayflower Hotel. Your support these past three days has been outstanding. I had a chance at the opening of our conference yesterday to thank all of our other sponsors, our President Barbara Propes, the WACA staff including Christie Roberts, Laura Reidy and David Koontz and all of the interns who put so much effort into this event. We remain grateful to all of you as well.
Senator Lugar, along with now Vice President Biden, were key fixtures in my diplomatic career. I will always be grateful for Senator Lugar’s guidance, support and encouragement.
There can be no one more deserving of this WACA Lifetime Achievement Award than Senator Dick Lugar. If you are a WACA supporter, you have to appreciate that the Senator’s official biography begins with these words: “Dick Lugar is an unwavering advocate of US leadership in the world, strong national security, free trade and economic growth.” Senator Lugar is the perfect choice for this award not just because of his past accomplishments in foreign affairs -- and we know that there are more contributions to come -- but because Senator Lugar’s service embodies the beliefs that form the core reason you are here as part of the World Affairs Councils of America, the premier grass roots organization in America supporting US engagement in the world.
I recently reread Sir Harold Nicolson’s short but perceptive primer on diplomacy, first published in the late 1930s and updated in 1950. Two points struck me as relevant for tonight.
First, as you can imagine, for someone of Nicolson’s age, experience and class, the idea of “democratic (that’s a small “d” Senator) diplomacy,” which emerged after World War I, very much thanks to President Wilson, was something of a new idea. But Nicolson is clear throughout the book that no foreign policy can be successful without public support and he reminds the practitioners of diplomacy that, in a democracy, the sovereign they represent is the sovereignty of the people. In concluding his chapter on “democratic diplomacy,” Nicolson makes the crucial point that, “Nothing should be left undone to educate the public” about international affairs. This is a goal WACA and Senator Lugar share.
Second, Nicholson defines what makes the ideal participant in the great conversation about the affairs between nations and peoples. I would say these attributes also apply to Senators:
a) Truthfulness;
b) Precision;
c) Calm;
d) Good temper;
e) Patience;
f) Modesty;
g) Loyalty.
All, of course, define our honoree.
There is one other charming part of Nicolson’s list which so clearly applies to our honoree. Nicolson writes after listing the first seven attributes, “But,” the reader may object, “you have forgotten intelligence, knowledge, discernment, prudence, hospitality, charm, industry, courage and even tact.” Nicholson says “I have not forgotten them; I have taken them for granted.” We, sir, do not take them for granted and add them to the reasons we thank you for your service to the United States.
Senator, I thank you for your kindness to me over the years, for the opportunity you gave me to participate in two rounds of NATO expansion, to carry out your vision that a NATO which did not participate out of area would be a NATO out of business, to establish the US Embassy in Iraq with the SFRC’s strong support, in the placement of energy security on the NATO agenda. The bipartisan partnership you forged in 1991 with Senator Sam Nunn to create the Nunn-Lugar Program to destroy nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the former Soviet Union is a model of American principled activism. To date, the Nunn-Lugar Program has deactivated more than 7,200 nuclear warheads that were once aimed at the United States. I thank you also for your commitment to the strongest civilian capacities of our government, including your commitment to the Foreign Service and to the State Department.
Tonight we especially honor your belief in America’s engagement in the world and your work to ensure that this positive engagement be supported by the great informed and involved people of this wonderful country. There can be no better description of the purpose of the World Affairs Councils of America and no more deserving recipient of this Lifetime Achievement Award than Senator Richard Lugar.
Senator Lugar:
I am honored to receive the Lifetime Achievement Award from the World Affairs Councils of America. I applaud the outstanding work performed by the World Affairs Councils over the years, as well as an excellent program during this 2009 National Conference.
I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to share some thoughts with you at the beginning of a new Presidential Administration, which is always a fertile moment for reflection on the goals and purposes of U.S. foreign policy. President Obama’s worldwide popularity has stimulated debate on how a more benign global view toward the United States could open doors for American diplomacy. I share these hopes. We should not be surprised if the extraordinary global interest in President Obama and the symbolic impact of his election lead to progress on some foreign policies priorities that have defied solution in recent decades.
Yet even as we speculate on the difference that hopes for a new President might make, it has also become popular to debate whether the United States is in decline, and if so, whether such a decline can be forestalled or redirected. Pessimists point to the growth of China as a competing power in global affairs, ongoing U.S. frustrations in dealing with rogue regimes, American energy dependence, enormous domestic fiscal deficits, diminished respect for the dollar, increased contentiousness with allies, and many other factors that indicate a potentially troubling shift in global realities.
The financial crisis has intensified this debate. Because many of the financial structures in distress are closely associated with the United States, some commentators see the global economic crisis as accelerating U.S. decline. Admittedly, some would say that the opposite is true – that the pressures on the global financial system make the United States all the more important to global stability. They point to the strength of United States Treasury securities, which indicates that the U.S. is still perceived by world markets as being the most secure economic power. But if one steps back from immediate indicators, it is difficult to argue that the global financial crisis enhances the relative weight of U.S. influence in the world. The crisis will vastly increase U.S. debt, thereby reducing our long-term budgetary flexibility. It has increased the skepticism in emerging economies about American style capitalism. And it is likely to reduce enthusiasm within the United States and beyond for liberalized trade measures that would greatly benefit our country.
At this stage, no one knows for certain how long or how deep this economic downturn will be. What is clear is that we are spending enormous amounts of borrowed money in an attempt to dig out of our immediate problem under the expectation that failing to do so will compound both the severity and the length of the current recession. Ongoing government intervention is necessary. But we must measure the potential benefits of short-term stimulus against the long-term impact of going even deeper into debt.
At some point, we will emerge from the current financial crisis. When we do, we still will face systemic global problems that pose existential risks to our nation. If the price of overcoming our short-term economic troubles is extreme national debt, resistance to trade, diminished confidence in the dollar, or other conditions that paralyze our ability to deal with such issues as climate change, energy insecurity, global food shortages, and proliferation risks, we will have merely delayed a harsh reckoning.
I am not suggesting that solutions to this conundrum are easy or obvious. Although I disagreed with the contents of the Obama Administration’s stimulus bill, I think the President is mindful that the problems threatening the well-being of Americans extend beyond current job losses. I know that his Administration is thinking about longer-term threats. But all of us need to consider carefully how the United States maintains its influence, addresses national security deficiencies, and provides global leadership in an era when the American economy may not be the overwhelming source of power it once was.
We must ask ourselves, what will be the basis of U.S. national influence in the future? Why will nations continue to listen to us? What leverage over rivals can we preserve and how can we ensure that we will still be able to rally friends behind vital U.S. objectives? The United States has had the luxury for many decades of not having to think in such terms. I emphasize that I do not believe that we are facing a precipitous collapse of U.S. influence. But I do think we have to be far more deliberate in executing a rational plan that gets the most out of U.S. strengths and compensates for new weaknesses.
The United States continues to enjoy inherent advantages. Most notably, our free and open society will continue to attract talented people from around the world who want to work and visit here. Our societal mobility and our entrepreneurial traditions historically have enabled our economy to adjust more quickly than other economies to changing circumstances. Our unrivaled higher education system will continue to be a source of global influence and will buoy our technological prowess. And our military power is unlikely to be matched anytime soon.
Increasingly, however, national influence will be determined by whether countries can contribute to solving global problems, or at least, whether they are making themselves indispensible to other nations. For example, in recent years, we have seen Russian global leverage increase through the deliberate pursuit of something approaching a monopoly over Europe’s energy supplies. On numerous occasions Moscow has used its status as an energy supplier to pressure customers through natural gas shutoffs and other means. The recent collapse of oil prices has diminished somewhat the utility of such tactics, but leveraging an energy monopoly remains the key to Russia’s global strategy. Similarly, China’s global leverage has increased as it has deliberately positioned itself as a creditor nation providing capital to the rest of the world. China has more than 20 percent of the world’s current account balance surplus. It is an understatement to say that these conditions change global perceptions and policies toward these countries.
The question for the United States becomes how do we preserve and diversify elements of U.S. national power on which other nations rely? Clearly the United States leads the world in military power. For some time we will continue to be valued as a guarantor of security and the only nation capable of deploying military assets to every corner of the globe in response to a crisis or humanitarian tragedy. But we know that even as we must maintain a strong defense to ensure our own national security, there are great risks in relying on military power as the foundation for American influence. Military power is extremely expensive and frequently resented. In too many cases, it cannot be applied effectively without severe economic and moral costs. Moreover, many of our most acute security problems – particularly those involving the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and isolated terrorist cells – are difficult to solve through the use of military force.
Within this context, the United States requires a long-term strategy for maintaining and expanding American influence in the world exclusive of the military instrument. This strategy should include consideration of what global problems should receive our most intense efforts and how such efforts can contribute to our national influence and leverage.
In my judgment the United States should focus its attention on the four problems that I mentioned previously: nuclear proliferation, global energy security, global food security, and climate change. The United States possesses unique abilities to address each of these problems that no other country has. Three of the four -- proliferation, energy scarcity, and climate change -- pose grave threats to the United States, itself.
All four are increasingly interconnected. Our failure to develop alternative sources of energy is fueling climate change, which in turn complicates the already difficult process of increasing farm yields per acre – the only route to preventing destabilizing food shortages. And our proliferation concerns will intensify as more energy-poor nations seek to solve their power generation problems by building nuclear plants.
We should recognize that energy issues are at the core of most major foreign policy, economic, and environmental issues today. Technological breakthroughs that expand clean energy supplies for billions of people worldwide will be necessary for sustained economic growth. In the absence of revolutionary changes in energy policy that are focused on these technological advancements, we will be risking multiple hazards for our country that could constrain living standards, undermine our foreign policy goals, and leave us highly vulnerable to economic, political, and environmental disasters.
Steps to address energy insecurity and climate change involve economic opportunities, not just constraints. Thanks to new technology, we can control many greenhouse gases with proactive, pro-growth solutions. Such technology represents an enormous opportunity for U.S. exports. But we have to have the will to develop, test, and implement these technologies on a truly urgent basis. President Obama must demand that research projects related to battery technology, cellulosic ethanol, carbon capture and storage, solar and wind power, and dozens of other technologies receive the highest priority within his Administration.
The United States is even more essential to the success of global food production. The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s saw the introduction of high yield seeds and improved agricultural techniques that resulted in a near doubling of cereal grain production per acre. But during the last two decades, investments in agriculture productivity have tumbled. In Africa, donor aid to the farm sector plunged from $4.1 billion in 1989 to just $1.9 billion in 2006. By 2050, it is projected that population growth will require another doubling of food production, even as the effects of climate change could be reducing food production in many areas.
Unless much greater effort is devoted to this problem, the world is likely to experience frequent food crises that increase migration, stimulate conflicts, intensify pandemics, and accelerate deforestation. As the most productive food grower in the world and the leader in GM technology, only the United States can drive the agricultural revolution that will be necessary to meet demand for more and better food in the coming decades.
Through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and other nonproliferation endeavors, the United States has acquired expertise about how to address stocks of weapons and fissile material. Among other steps, I have advocated the establishment of a nuclear fuel bank that would provide countries that give up their own enrichment and reprocessing programs a guaranteed supply of reasonably priced fuel for nuclear power generation. This would help to address the problem that enrichment and reprocessing technology intended to produce fuel for civilian reactors can also be used to create weapons material. The spread of these capabilities would dangerously increase the chances that new nations could develop nuclear weapons and that terrorists could obtain nuclear materials for bombs. It is critical to expand nonproliferation efforts and reinvigorate arms control regimes so we are not facing nuclear crises as we attempt to set the global economy on stronger footing.
Energy scarcity, climate change, food shortages, and nuclear proliferation are not new problems. In fact, each of them figured prominently in the Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community that Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair delivered last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The point that I would underscore is that we can’t afford to view these issues solely as problem solving exercises. We should see them as opportunities to expand American influence in areas where we can make unique contributions that will be highly valued by other nations.
U.S. foreign policy cannot afford to become reactive. We should not allow fixation on rogue states or global hot spots to shorten our strategic horizon, militarize our foreign policy, unjustifiably concentrate our resources, or rob us of our initiative. If we do, we will be reducing our capacity to lead the world in ways that are more likely to affect our future. The effectiveness of our policy depends on the preparation that has occurred over decades. It depends on how diligently we have attended to the fundamental building blocks of U.S. foreign policy leverage. If this preparation has been neglected, no amount of charisma, bravado, or diplomatic skill by the commander in chief and the national security team will make up the deficit.
With this in mind, each of us should think of how we can contribute to a coherent U.S. foreign policy based on our national strengths. With patient attention to long term strategic opportunities, the United States will thrive in this century as we did in the last.
###
