Public Remarks
Dialogue of Civilizations and the Middle East
William J. Burns, U.S. Ambassador to Russia
St. Petersburg, Russia, November 09, 2007
Thank you for that kind introduction. I am truly honored to be here -- with a host, St. Petersburg State University, for which I have such great respect ... among leaders, like Deputy Foreign Minister Saltanov and Ambassador el-Reedy, and many others in this room, for whom I have such high regard ... to talk about a subject, the dialogue of civilizations and the future of the Middle East, which holds such crucial importance for all of us.
I will do my best to be brief, bearing in mind the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who said that "the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." Wise words -- from one of the wisest of American statesmen.
My basic message is a simple one. I am convinced that what we are seeing in and around the Middle East today is not a clash of civilizations, but a clash within societies struggling to define themselves and their place in the world. The outcome of that struggle matters enormously to the rest of the international community, and few countries have a greater stake in that outcome than the United States and Russia. We both have important interests in the Middle East. We both have important responsibilities, as permanent members of the UN Security Council and as the world's leading nuclear powers. We both have important concerns about the need for tolerance among civilizations, as the world's two biggest immigrant countries, as diverse, multi-ethnic, multi-confessional states with large Muslim populations. And we both have suffered from terrorism and violent extremism.
The challenge before us, it seems to me, is how best to make common cause with moderate majorities in the Middle East trying to cope with militant minorities. That is a profoundly difficult task. In a region afflicted with unresolved conflicts, economic under-development, social inequalities, closed political systems, and a deep sense of lost dignity and grievance, it is not hard to prey on despair and preach a message of vengeance and destruction of the status quo. But that is an essentially negative agenda, offering only the illusion of satisfaction.
Our challenge is to help provide a positive agenda for the region, a basis for hope for societies which have lived for too long with too little of it. We need to make clear not just what we stand against, like terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, but what we stand for, like an enduring two-state solution to the Palestinian problem and economic revival. We need to make clear that we understand that stability is not a static phenomenon -- that sustaining it requires the careful nurturing of peaceful change and hope. We need to be mindful of the limits of our influence as outsiders; mindful of the limits of our ability to fully understand the complexities of the Middle East; mindful of the importance of conducting our relationships with respect and dignity; and mindful that we need to be seen as part of the solution to the region's biggest challenges, not as part of the problem.
I have long thought that a little humility goes a long way in the application of American influence and leadership in the Middle East. We pretend to no monopoly of wisdom in the region, and we have made more than our share of mistakes. Even as close a friend and admirer of the United States as Winston Churchill once said that "the thing I like most about Americans is that they almost always do the right thing in the end ... they just almost always like to exhaust all the alternatives first."
The truth is that the grinding difficulties of post-war Iraq, the abuses at places like Abu Ghraib, and the continuing gap between our best intentions and progress on the ground towards Arab-Israeli peace have undermined American credibility and prestige. But the further truth is that active American leadership is an indispensable part of the solution for the growing problems of the Middle East. It is not a role that we can play well in isolation; it is a role that can be played effectively only in partnership with others, inside the region and outside it. That is particularly true in Iraq, where the United States and Russia and many other countries share an interest in stability and progress, whatever our pre-war differences.
Beyond Iraq, the positive agenda for hope and change that we seek has at least three essential parts. The first is as compelling as it is obvious: real progress toward a just and comprehensive peace, in which Arabs and Israelis can live together in dignity and security, and in which Palestinians finally have a state of their own. Secretary Rice, working closely with Russia and our other partners in the Quartet, has just finished her eighth trip to the region this year, in preparation for the important meeting that will soon be held in Annapolis, Maryland.
A second priority involves support for development of modern economic and political institutions. The Middle East cannot be healthy socially or politically if its economies are in crisis. Today, the region's share of world GDP, trade and foreign investment continues to shrink. Rapidly growing labor forces without jobs are a prescription for frustration. The gap between haves and have-nots, and the problem of corruption, are widening, not narrowing. On top of all this, the Middle East faces the lowest per capita water availability in the world.
There is much that can be done to help. Freer trade helps create jobs and diversify economies. I remember when I arrived as Ambassador in Jordan in 1998, total Jordanian exports to the U.S. were only $9 million a year. After we concluded a bilateral free trade agreement and other new arrangements, Jordanian exports to the U.S. soared, exceeding $1 billion annually by 2002, and creating tens of thousands of jobs for Jordanians.
Alongside economic challenges, political structures in the region all too often tend to insulate regimes and governing elites from change, rather than to lead it. The voices of publics are all too often ignored, until they raise them to a shout. While we -- especially Americans -- ought to be mindful of the limits of our influence and certainly of the imperfections of our own system, we should work with our friends to support efforts to open up avenues for political participation and deepen respect for the rule of law, and the rights and sanctity of the individual. That is not about American preaching or lecturing, for which I know people in the Middle East as well as Russia manage to control their enthusiasm these days. It is about the self-interest of Middle East societies. Such institutions won't spring up overnight, and they cannot be imposed from outside, but they are crucial parts of a long-term positive agenda.
A third challenge revolves upon our collective interest in fighting violent extremists, and especially in combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction, which would be terribly dangerous in the hands of terrorists. Here, too, the United States and Russia are working together with friends in the region, in our new Global Initiative Against Nuclear Terrorism, and in our cooperation on new ways of developing civilian nuclear energy while limiting the dangers of weapons proliferation. Iran's unwillingness thus far to meet its IAEA as well as its UN Security Council obligations remains a serious concern, requiring serious diplomacy from the U.S., Russia, China and our European partners. A similar multilateral approach has made progress on the North Korean nuclear problem, and the U.S. and Russia worked together in recent years to help Libya implement its decision to abandon WMD programs. These issues are extremely difficult, but strong, coordinated diplomatic efforts can make a difference.
I know I am now dangerously close to violating the wise advice of Mr. Jefferson on brevity in public speaking. So let me conclude simply by emphasizing that the positive agenda which I have sketched very briefly is not an a la carte menu. We can't simply pursue one goal and ignore the others. The three priorities that I mentioned are inter-connected, and we all need to work together, energetically, across the whole broad front. Much is at stake in the dramas and conflicts and clashes within societies that are playing out across the Middle East today. But much is possible if we can counter the negative agenda of militant minorities with a positive agenda of hope and possibility.
Thank you very much again for allowing me to participate. I wish you great success in this vitally important conference.