This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
Administrator J. Brian Atwood
American University
Human Rights, Humanitarian Assistance and U.S. Foreign Policy
Washington, D.C., October 17, 1997
U.S. Agency for International Development
I want to thank you for inviting me back to American University. I confess
that I remember very little of the specifics of the graduate work I did here between
assignments in the foreign service some twenty-five years ago. But I do remember
my first encounter with tear gas.
I thought the demonstration to protest the Vietnam war and the killing of
students at Kent State University a few days before was quite peaceful. Those were
very troubled times in our country and college campuses all over were erupting. It
wasn't difficult in those days to get students to focus on foreign policy!
My return to American University in 1994 to receive an honorary degree from
the Law School was a much more pleasant experience. I very much cherish that
honor and I thank Dean Grossman for the central role he played in making it happen.
You are very fortunate to have people like Claudio Grossman and Robert
Goldman affiliated with your University. Their integrity and conviction are reflected
in the contributions they have made to international human rights laws and practices.
Their work has touched countless lives around the globe. We should salute them for
the role they have played.
Our professors have given us a difficult topic this afternoon. "Human Rights,
Humanitarian Assistance and U.S. Foreign Policy." Much has been said about each
of these three issues, but few have attempted to explore in depth the linkages among them. I suppose it is logical to expect the Administrator of the American foreign aid
program to be able to describe the way these issues are connected, but it is not an
easy assignment.
Let me begin by reflecting on a visit I made this past weekend to the new
memorial honoring the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. On one of the
beautiful granite walls of that memorial is written perhaps the best known of
Roosevelt's quotes: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
He spoke these words at his first inauguration in 1933, when the United States
was in the midst of the great depression. It was a simple but powerful admonition to
a people suffering through the many indignities and uncertainties caused by a
collapsed economy. It caused me to reflect on the role fear plays today in producing
irrational responses to the problems societies face.
I am sure you would agree with the proposition that the highest human rights
standards should be observed by all peoples and all governments. We are justifiably
appalled when we hear of abuses. Governments in particular should not be excused
for their conduct. Unfortunately, however, public condemnation doesn't often correct
the problem. Sanctions sometimes make us feel better, but the record of their impact
is sketchy at best. What we need is a better understanding of the conditions that seem
to accompany human rights abuses.
Most often an atmosphere of fear prevails in countries where abuse is practiced.
That fear is partly the result of oppressive governments and partly the result of
oppressive conditions.
Extremists exist in every society. We have them here in the United States. We
consider their behavior to be strange; they are very much on the margins of our
political system, but even here they can do great damage if they gain a following.
That is why Roosevelt told us to guard against being consumed by fear. He was
speaking at a time when many Americans were flirting with extreme ideologies, when
a majority of Americans were out of work and desperate and when right and left wing
rhetoric was competing with Roosevelt's reasoned fireside chats over American radio.
Transport yourself from the American depression to the hot spots of the
developing world of today. Fear and hopelessness dominate far too many people in
places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cambodia, Haiti, Bosnia, Rwanda
and North Korea. It is not surprising that the conditions in these places have
enhanced the influence of extremists and have contributed to serious human rights
abuses.
Where human rights are abused humanitarian crises develop. Or, is it the other
way around? Does it really matter? The two are linked.
What we must do is look for opportunities to place a country on the path of
sustainable development. Providing humanitarian assistance in these countries is
necessary to save lives, but the lives we save have little hope. They will, figuratively,
need saving time and time again.
Creative diplomacy and timely action by the international community can open
a window that will enable a society to overcome its fears and rebuild itself. That is
happening today in Bosnia and Haiti and South Africa. In these places, in varying
degrees, hope is beginning to supplant fear.
It is of course very easy to view these transitions in entirely cynical terms.
Setbacks occur frequently. Political and economic institutions are so weak they often
seem to be in crisis. Our own political system seems to require instant gratification.
If we invest millions in Bosnia and place American forces at risk there, as the
argument goes, we should be able to observe measurable progress in terms of weeks
and months, not years and decades. But years and decades are needed.
I have always been fascinated by a statement President Aristide made when he
returned to Haiti. He said his hope was to see Haiti move from "misery to poverty,
but with dignity." Perhaps these were more realistic expectations for a country where
80 percent of the population lives in absolute poverty, on much less than a dollar a
day.
We have an opening in Haiti because the people have more hope for the future.
It is hope constrained by realism, but it is hope nonetheless. We are working with the
Haitian government to bring education and health care to young people. We are
trying to restore the agriculture sector and the environment by planting millions of
trees, many of them fruit trees that will not be cut down. We are training police and
judges to create respect for the law.
This is slow and tedious work, but Haiti today is moving from misery to
poverty. And more people can pursue their lives with dignity. Fewer people are
desperate because the informal economy is doing better even if political crisis and
weak institutions are holding back the formal economy.
In the worst days of conflict in Bosnia we and others in the donor community
provided food aid. One of the great ironies of the modern age is that humanitarian assistance can prevent death by starvation while people are dying in mass killings, the
victims of ethnic cleansing. An often-cited quote from that period comes from an
unidentified Bosnian who said "The rest of the world wants to make sure we aren't
hungry when we're shot."
The shooting has stopped in Bosnia today and slowly but surely people are
returning to normalcy. NATO troops are providing security and gradually the civilian
population is gaining a real stake in peace. The Dayton accords envisioned much
more ethnic integration than is happening, but even here progress is being made. At
least the opportunity exists for a sustained peace and for the building of institutions
that will maintain it.
We ask ourselves constantly whether humanitarian aid is contributing to or
prolonging either a conflict or a situation that causes humanitarian crises in the first
instance. We cannot ignore the non-combatant victims of conflict -- particularly the
innocent children. But we must assure that our aid is getting to them. We would be
irresponsible were we to send aid into a country if its delivery could not be
monitored.
We faced an even more difficult dilemma in Eastern Zaire after the Rwanda
genocide. We were feeding millions of people in refugee camps that we knew were
being controlled by the perpetrators of the genocide. We tried to reach agreement on
breaking up or moving the camps which were being used to launch attacks on Rwanda
and parts of Zaire. Unfortunately, the record reflects our inability to solve the
dilemma.
Hindsight is perfect vision, but it seems so obvious today that the victimized
parties, the Rwandan government and the Banyamulenge peoples of Eastern Zaire
would have to take matters into their own hands. So today we are left with a new
government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the former Zaire, that derives
from the conflict started to eliminate a threat emanating from refugee camps run by
the international community. Is it any wonder that the UN and the international
community are having a hard time gaining the cooperation of the Kabila government?
It is time for a new approach to this situation that demands respect for human rights
Today, a full and fair review of the role of the international community and
regional parties in the past, and recognition and punishment of those responsible for
the worst form of impunity imaginable, genoicide.
In North Korea we are faced by some very different and equally explosive
issues between human rights and humanitarian assistance. North Korea is one of the
world's most isolated countries. Its government controls the flow of information and
the behavior of its people. North Korea is far from a transition to open government
and an open market. This means that we must maintain a guarded diplomatic posture
and a vigilant military presence on the peninsula.
In North Korea we have been careful to maintain a strict separation between
our response to an immediate humanitarian crisis and our diplomatic efforts to explore
opportunities for a more peaceful co-existence. We have refused to link our
humanitarian aid to progress at the Four Party talks even though the North Koreans
themselves have pressed for such a linkage.
However, we have also recognized for some time that the food crisis in North
Korea is not the simple result of natural disasters such as floods or drought. North
Korea offers a vivid example of why totalitarian regimes and centrally planned
economies have always been vulnerable to food shortages.
The only hope for reversing this decline lies with meaningful reform. Such
reform will require policy changes by the North Koreans. There is a clear need to
adopt the new practices -- political, technological and economic -- necessary for
efficient food production. In the long term, participation in the international
community is the only way that North Korea can independently feed, clothe and
advance the well-being of its 23 million people.
But in the short term, we face a major humanitarian crisis. Clearly the people
of North Korea are in severe distress. There have been numerous reports of
widespread malnutrition, especially among children and the elderly. In response, we
have provided North Korea with assistance. Unquestionably this food aid has saved
lives. We have always insisted in providing aid that no U.S. food must go to the
North Korean military. North Korea provides for an active military in excess of 2
million people. Does it make sense to help feed the innocent victims of a totalitarian
regime?
Some argue that any assistance to a place like North Korea only serves to help
prop up a government that abuses its own people. But in such a calculation, how
many famine related deaths would be acceptable to secure the freedom of survivors?
How much suffering would be enough? America has a proud tradition of offering
assistance to victims of famine and war regardless of the politics of their government.
That tradition is sorely tested when we work in countries like North Korea.
Throughout the time we have delivered assistance, we have insisted on monitors
to be in the field to ensure that food was indeed going to the needy. In recent weeks
we have had disputes over getting the full number of monitors in the field. At what
juncture do you stop assistance because of obstruction from the North Korean
government? Where is the precise formula that balances combatting hunger,
negotiating with a shrewd totalitarian government, addressing human rights, soundly
using taxpayer dollars and practicing good foreign policy?
Each of these countries -- Haiti, Bosnia and North Korea -- present very
different circumstances and different challenges. But in the end our goals should be to
end the fear and start the building process. Our diplomacy in all cases must be
directed toward creating the window to end the need for humanitarian assistance and
to begin the process of creating political institutions and economic opportunity. Only
if we can get to this point can we expect to end the human rights abuses and
marginalize those extremists who would abuse people for their own ends.
Before I finish here today I want to say a few words about another topic that
will affect all our lives in the coming decade: global climate change. I will not dwell
on the science except to say that we are causing the warming of the earth's surface.
The greenhouse gases we are pouring into the atmosphere are trapping the sun's rays
and we are seeing a rise in temperatures with all the negative side effects: droughts,
rising seas, more humidity in the air, more violent storms and more of all the above in
future years.
As you may know, there is a major media campaign being waged in this
country to influence the U.S. position at the negotiations that will take place in Kyoto,
Japan in December. Some American industries that emit more CO2 than others have decided they will try to sink these international talks by confusing the public debate.
Their approach is to challenge the 2000 scientists who agree that human activity is
warming the globe. They predict that setting tough targets will ruin our economy.
And, they demand that the developing countries join the industrial countries in setting
targets for reductions, knowing that the agreed negotiating framework for Kyoto calls
upon the industrial countries to act first.
Now, the Clinton Administration agrees that we should try to get the
developing countries into the new international regime as soon as possible. The larger
of these countries are already producing significant emissions. So we have set out to
convince them to join us. I travelled to India two weeks ago to urge that large
country to join us.
You can imagine my surprise when I read in the Wall Street Journal two days
ago that the CEO of one of the companies that is attempting to sabotage the Kyoto
round was exhorting the Chinese government to stay out of a Kyoto agreement. The
Chairman of Exxon Corporation, Mr. Lee R. Raymond, "urged developing countries
to avoid environmental controls that would hinder their development," according to
the Journal.
I would suggest that it is the height of cynicism on the one hand to attempt to
force your government to include the developing countries in a treaty or else, and on
the other to travel to those countries to urge them to reject the treaty. This borders on
unpatriotic behavior as far as I am concerned. I don't know about you, but I have
already decided, at some inconvenience, to shop elsewhere for my gasoline. No more
Exxon for me!
Seriously, the climate change problem threatens our nation. The costs are
already being felt and they are bound to grow. If these self interested polluters cause
a failure at Kyoto, future generations will pay dearly.
Thank you for allowing me to get that off my chest.
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
 |
Last Updated on: July 18, 2001
|
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
