A new generation and America's post-cold war challenges - Deputy Secretary of State Clifton R. Wharton Jr.; speech - Transcript

US Department of State Dispatch, May 17, 1993

I am delighted to be here for several reasons. First, there is nothing more joyous than celebrating and congratulating a graduating class--so congratulations! Second, my wife and I are long-time friends of President Duffey and his spouse, Anne. Third, even though I am a graduate of a rival school--SAIS--you have honored me. And fourth, you have given me an opportunity to reflect on certain aspects of US foreign policy.

When President Clinton spoke here earlier this year, he outlined the post-Cold War challenges and opportunities facing our nation. He called on all of us to support a program of enlightened American leadership in world affairs. President Clinton's words of hope and concern at the centennial of this university struck a personal chord for me. He rightly said that the world has not been at a comparable turning point since the late 1940s.

In 1947, it was my class at Harvard that was graduating. Secretary of State George C. Marshall was our commencement speaker. His message was brief and compelling. It changed my life. That day, I became convinced that assistance would be critical to constructive global change and a stable international order. And, I have been involved with development ever since.

At a time when the Cold War was looming and military tensions were rising, Marshall launched the plan for European recovery and opened the possibility of a more hopeful path for Europe and the world. The Marshall Plan was, at its core, a message of hope and a call to partnership. "Our policy," Marshall said, "is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist." Marshall went on to ensure that any government that was willing to assist in the task of recovery would find full cooperation from the United States. It was a hinge-point in European and world history. Tragically, fatefully, Russia turned away from that colossal opportunity, and the global promise of Marshall's broader vision was deferred for over 40 years by the realities of the Cold War.

Today, in every sense of the word, is a new, hopeful day. Forty-six years late, Russia has decisively rejected communism and world domination and has taken up our offer of hope and partnership. We have the rare opportunity to extend our post-war partnerships with Europe and Japan to the whole of Russia and Eurasia. And, like my generation did in our day, your generation-indeed, the entire international community---stands at a new hinge-point of history. One world--the bitterly divided world of the Cold War---has been left behind. A new world is before us facing major challenges from poverty, nationalism, other forces unleashed by the demise of communism, and extremism of all kinds. But it can be made whole through the powers of democracy and economic freedom. Your generation can help make it happen. Exciting opportunities for promoting democracy, prosperity, and peace are open to you. And new perils abound as well.

Let me begin with the defining features of the post-Cold War environment and the difficult questions they pose.

One, with the demise of communism, there is no longer any serious challenge to the efficacy of democratic principles of government and market economics. But how can we help the new democracies, especially the newly free states of the former Soviet empire, overcome the devastating legacy of command or centralized state enterprises and communism's political and economic failure?

Two, as the only country now capable of projecting its military power anywhere in the world, what is the national interest "template" that we should use in deciding our foreign policy priorities? What criteria should we employ in seeking to protect our fundamental goals and interests? As the superpower, just how broad and inclusive is our national interest and world leadership responsibility? Does our leadership status bring with it certain moral imperatives that transcend narrower political or economic national interests? For example, we have been agonizing over whether we have an obligation to take the lead in Bosnia, when others closer to the scene have been unable to end the tragedy there.

Three, bipolar, East-West dynamics no longer drive policy nor serve as an adequate justification for foreign aid. But how do we help ensure that Cold War divisions are not replaced by new gulfs between the stable and prosperous "haves" and "have nots" wracked by political upheaval and economic chaos? Further, what are the implications of the bipolar demise for North-South relations? And what is our responsibility for the persistence of poverty, whether in Somalia or Haiti, or in our own inner cities and depressed rural areas?

Four, increasing differentiation among the developing countries has seen Africa, at one end of the spectrum, lose economic ground. At the other end, some of the newly industrialized countries are now world-class economic actors. Across this spectrum, what is the most effective, efficient use of our technological prowess and our limited financial resources as we seek to promote greater democracy, prosperity, and stability worldwide? Moreover, when and how do we determine that a friendly country no longer qualifies for development assistance, security assistance?