*EPF215 05/09/00
Text: Albright Remarks to May 8 Associated Press Annual Luncheon
(Enhancing cooperation among nations central to U.S. diplomacy) (3020)

"The overriding diplomatic challenge of our era," says Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, is securing cooperation from other nations to build strong and healthy economies, repel 21st-century threats, and promote democratic values.

Albright made the remarks May 8 in a speech in New York City to the Associated Press annual luncheon.

"America's place is at the center of the international system. And our task is to see that the connections around the center -- between the regions and among the most prominent nations -- are strong and sure," she said.

Albright said she is "proud that America has long been a champion of press freedom, and that we continue to raise our collective voice in support of embattled journalists in places such as Colombia and Peru, Iran and Serbia, Cuba and Zimbabwe -- just to name a few."

Following is the State Department text:

(begin text)

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Remarks to the Associated Press Annual Luncheon

Waldorf-Astoria
New York, New York,
May 8, 2000

As released by the Office of the Spokesman,
May 9, 2000

U.S. Department of State
(As Prepared for Delivery)

Chairman Newhouse, President Boccardi, assembled giants of the media, distinguished guests and friends, good afternoon. I am delighted to be here. As I suspect you know, the dean of the State Department's press corps is the AP's own Barry Schweid, who always gets the first question at our press briefings and then, in his dispatches, the last word as well.

The Associated Press may well have been the first truly global news organization. For a century and a half, you have been the nerve center of the world's information system, and the embodiment of quality, reliability and objectivity -- the hallmarks of a responsible and independent press.

You have also been on the front lines of an international struggle between those determined to suppress the truth and those brave enough to report it. Like soldiers and diplomats, many journalists have given their lives in the line of duty, including two dozen while on assignment for AP.

I am proud that America has long been a champion of press freedom, and that we continue to raise our collective voice in support of embattled journalists in places such as Colombia and Peru, Iran and Serbia, Cuba and Zimbabwe -- just to name a few.

This is right, but it is also smart. Because we Americans increasingly live global lives. Our companies, farmers and workers compete in world markets. Our economy is bolstered by trade. Our citizens study, travel and do business overseas. We have allies and friends on every continent. And our borders are vulnerable to technological, demographic and criminal forces that no nation, on its own, can fully control.

Our future depends, therefore, not on our actions alone, but also on whether other nations are willing and able to work with us to build a strong and healthy global economy, repel 21st-century threats, and promote democratic values.

Securing this cooperation is the overriding diplomatic challenge of our era. For America's place is at the center of the international system. And our task is to see that the connections around the center -- between the regions and among the most prominent nations -- are strong and sure.

We also have an interest in helping other nations become full partners by lending a hand to those trying to make democratic transitions work, emerge from poverty, or forge peace with their neighbors.

Today, I would like to focus on our efforts to enhance international cooperation in three areas vital to your future, beginning with the economy.

Here, our policy is to encourage sustainable growth in all regions, through freer trade, improved governance and wider social progress. This helps the United States, because the more engines driving the world economy, the smoother the ride and the further we will go.

For rich and poor nations alike, economic integration is the best road to higher growth and lower unemployment, more literacy and less hunger. But it is not enough simply to repeat this mantra.

Our strategies must respond to both sides of the globalization equation. With our partners, we must expand trade, while helping dislocated workers to learn new skills; foster growth, while creating incentives for sound environmental practices; improve technology, while investing more in education and health; enrich ties among the advanced nations, while reaching out and pulling in the rest.

All this amounts to a pretty tall order that we can only fill over time.

To spur progress, President Clinton has called for more openness and accountability in our international economic institutions, and more effort to ensure that the quest for financial stability not come at the expense of basic human needs.

That's why President Clinton is a leading backer of initiatives to relieve the world's poorest nations of their crushing burdens of debt, and thereby enable them to devote more of their scare resources to education and health.

And it's why we have worked with Congress on legislation to lower U.S. tariffs and quotas on products from Central America, the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa. We hope that the Senate will soon give final approval to this landmark bill, and provide a victory for all who believe the healthiest world economy is inclusive and fair.

America's role is neither to promote, nor defend globalization, but rather to join with others in guiding it -- so the new economy becomes a march to the top, not a descent to the bottom. We must help those hurt by change; but also reaffirm our belief that an open and competitive world economy is the best route to higher standards of living for people everywhere.

I realize this is not an unusual position for an American Secretary of State to take. But it is also the message we are hearing more and more from a less predictable source, and that is Beijing.

Nearly three decades have passed since President Nixon's historic visit to China.

He encountered there an isolated and totalitarian regime. China remains politically repressive, but economically, it is moving steadily away from centralized control.

To encourage this trend, President Clinton is asking Congress to support our agreement to bring China into the World Trade Organization by approving Permanent Normal Trade Relations, or PNTR, with that country.

The benefits of this proposal are many and clear. PNTR costs America nothing -- nada, bupkus, zilch. Our markets are already open.

But under the agreement, when China joins the WTO, its tariffs on key U.S. farm, chemical, manufacturing and information technology products will start going down. Many barriers will be slashed by 50% or more. Some will vanish entirely. The agreement also opens China's market to telecommunications, engineering, environmental and other services.

This translates into more income for U.S. workers, more business for American firms and farms, and more opportunities to sustain our nation's record growth. China has also agreed to unprecedented protections for our citizens against unfair dumping or import surges.

So economically, PNTR for China is a home run for America. But there are foreign policy benefits, as well.

We Americans differ sharply with China on human rights. And President Clinton and I have consistently raised these differences in meetings with Chinese officials.

Now, we are working with Members from both parties in Congress to develop a more appropriate means of influencing China than the annual debate on normal trade relations.

Curtailing trade with China would do nothing for those denied internationally recognized rights of political and religious expression in that country. But China is changing. Over the past decade, its people have gained more and more control over their daily lives, so that today, they enjoy a greater degree of personal freedom than at any time in the last 50 years.

The role of government in the economic and social arenas is diminishing. This is the result primarily of economic reform. And when China joins the WTO, these trends will accelerate.

As a member of that organization, China will have to play by international trading rules. It will have to open its regulatory system to public scrutiny. And it will have to reduce further the role of state-owned industries. This will help promote the rule of law and develop a more open society. It is no surprise that democratic leaders such as Hong Kong's Martin Lee strongly favor PNTR.

But the China trade vote is about more than the economy; more even than human rights; it is also about the long-term security of our nation.

Because the more integrated China is into the world economy, the more incentives it will have to deal peacefully with Taiwan; to help preserve stability on the Korean Peninsula (where 37,000 U.S. troops are deployed); and to play a constructive role on issues such as halting the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and curbing global climate change.

The consequences of defeating PNTR must also be weighed. Were that to happen, China would still join the WTO, but the dividends yielded by lower trade and investment barriers would be pocketed by our Asian and European competitors. The job of those working for reform from within China would become even harder.

And Beijing could well interpret rejection of PNTR as a strategic decision on our part to treat it as an enemy. This would create an opening for hardliners to move China in the direction of confrontation instead of cooperation, heightening tensions across the Taiwan Strait and the risk of disruptive incidents in the South China Sea.

That is why Taiwan's President-elect Chen Shui-ban has voiced support for normal trade relations between China and the United States. It is why our allies in the region agree. And why so many of our past and present national leaders from both parties will gather at the White House tomorrow to express support for PNTR and for moving forward in our relationship with China.

The vote on China PNTR may well be the most significant economic and national security decision Congress faces this year. But the arguments in favor are overwhelming. It should not be a close call. The smart choice and the right choice is "yes."

United States engagement with China is an important example of our effort to help build a more inclusive and effective international system. Some of these initiatives involve economic institutions such as the WTO. But we are also working to prepare for, and respond to, the security threats of the new century.

For example, with our allies, we have enlarged NATO and forged partnerships with Europe's other democracies.

We are striving with Congress, our allies and Russia to develop arms control and missile defense arrangements that will enable us to counter new dangers without reviving old ones.

We are persisting in efforts to help Bosnia, Kosovo and all of Southeast Europe join the continent's democratic mainstream. And we are supporting peace processes in key regions, such as the Middle East, the Aegean and Northern Ireland -- the scene of important and positive developments during the last few days.

On Friday, British and Irish leaders reached agreement on a plan for reconvening Northern Ireland's power-sharing, self-rule government. And on Saturday, the IRA for the first time agreed to put its arms "beyond use," and agreed to open its arsenals to regular inspections. President Clinton has welcomed these steps, which we hope will move the Northern Ireland Peace Process to a new level.

Of course, America's security role differs greatly from that of a generation ago. With our allies, we maintain a powerful deterrent against overt attack. But as the memory of Terry Anderson's ordeal and more recent terrorist acts remind us, unconventional threats have created a battlefield populated by civilians, with no identifiable front line.

That is why, in countering unconventional threats, we need more than the help of treaty allies alone. We work with every willing nation, and through regional and global institutions, to halt proliferation, terror and crime.

Americans may be proud that our country has helped others become more secure and prosperous. But perhaps even more, we have inspired and assisted millions in gaining and retaining freedom.

The 21st Century began with democratic momentum strong. One hundred years ago, the number of countries with a government elected competitively and on the basis of universal suffrage was zero. Today, it is 120.

And yet we are not complacent. For around the globe, nations in transition are under stress. Many have not been able to turn the promise of democracy into the coin of prosperity for their citizens. Some are divided by ethnic strife; others weakened by disease; still others besieged by crime; and a few are plagued by all of the above.

The right response in these countries is not to give up on democracy, but rather to embrace it more fully. The right response for established democracies is to reinforce that message in appropriate ways.

To this end, from Asia to Africa to the Andes, U.S. agencies are training judges, drafting commercial codes, advancing the status of women, bolstering civil society and otherwise helping to assemble the nuts and bolts of freedom.

We are also encouraging the information revolution, which is helping people everywhere gain access to the power knowledge provides; and amplifying the role of vigorous and independent media in creating a freer world.

For example, under the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore, we are stressing improved access to computer technologies in the developing world. We are working to shield the Internet and E-commerce from trade duties and discrimination.

Through USAID, we are providing technical advice on how to design and enforce legal protections for the press. We also provide assistance, such as training and printing presses, to journalists in some countries.

Diplomatically, we use every opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to press freedoms. And we regularly express concern about specific cases, such as the treatment of Andrei Babitsky in Chechnya and Russia, and the murder of ten journalists last year by Sierra Leone's loathsome Revolutionary United Front.

Some say it is arrogant of the United States to promote democracy and that we are trying to impose our values on others. But how can supporting the right of people to express themselves freely and shape their own destinies be an imposition? In any country at any time, dictatorship is an imposition; democracy is a choice.

In the final analysis, America's role in the 21st Century will be shaped by our purposes, which will be grounded in our interests, which will be defined by the voices and votes of our people.

Some fear America will attempt too much. I am concerned that -- because of a lack of foreign policy resources -- we may be constrained to attempt and able to accomplish too little.

Effective diplomacy is our first line of defense. So most Americans are astonished when I tell them we devote a smaller percentage of our wealth to assisting overseas development than any other industrialized country. During the past decade, our rate of investment has declined by half; since the days of Truman and Marshall, by more than ninety percent.

This makes it harder for us to leverage the help of others, and often leaves us with no other choice than to shortchange one urgent need in order to cope with another.

Already this year, Congress has approved a budget resolution that will slash more than twelve percent from the President's foreign affairs funding request.

The Senate has lagged in approving emergency funds to help Colombian President Pastrana rescue his country, and therefore ours, from drug criminals.

And key legislators have for months been blocking efforts to pay our share of costs for desperately needed UN peace operations in Kosovo, East Timor, the Congo and Sierra Leone.

This is irresponsible. The debate over adequate funding for foreign policy is not new in our country. It has been joined repeatedly from the time the Continental Congress sent Ben Franklin to Paris, to the proposals for Lend Lease and the Marshall Plan that bracketed World War II, to our more recent support for democratic transitions in Central and Eastern Europe.

In each case, history has looked more kindly on those who argued for our engagement than on those who said America just could not afford to lead.

In this era, we do not pursue our foreign policy goals with a stopwatch around our necks or a scorecard in our hands. Economic integration and democratic growth are shaped less by sudden breakthroughs than by gradual progress, as troublesome barriers are worn down and beneficial habits built up.

America is not renowned for its patience. But through four decades of Cold War, under Administrations of both parties, we did not waver. And our forces have been helping to maintain stability in Asia for almost as long as I have been alive.

Every nation has flaws; most have histories in which shameful episodes occurred. The United States is no exception. But I believe to the depths of my being in the goodness of America's power. This faith is grounded in my study of history, the experience of my own life, and my knowledge of the American people.

America's role is to lead -- alone when we must, with others when we can -- towards a world more secure, democratic and broadly prosperous than it has ever been.

By our side will be all who love liberty, whether or not they are free today; all who believe in tolerance and respect for the rights of others; all who value the free flow of information and an independent press; and all who want to raise their children in a world where the defenders of peace and the proponents of law are far-sighted and vigilant, strong and unafraid.

With such allies, we cannot, nor will we, fail.

Thank you all very much.

(end State Department text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN