 |
Amb. Hill speaks at the Diplomatic Academy
|
Delivered February 10, 2004 AMERICA, POLAND, AND THE NEW DIPLOMACY It is truly a pleasure to be here today at the Diplomatic Academy. I especially want to thank Professor Kuzniar and his colleagues for making today’s event possible. I also want to acknowledge some of the junior officers from our embassy who are here today. It was not long ago that many of them completed their training at our National Foreign Affairs Training Center, which our diplomats also fondly refer to as NFATC or FSI for the Foreign Service Institute. In fact, I had the honor to accompany Foreign Minister Cimoszewicz to FSI some time ago, and I remember so well his questions and comments and his overall commitment to diplomatic training. I am very pleased to see that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs takes the training of its future diplomats so seriously and works so hard to prepare them for the real world of diplomacy. In fact, you are going to need that training. Because the advent of instant international communication, the availability of the Internet, and of inexpensive transoceanic telephone calls, does not make it any easier. Indeed, modern communications have made our jobs much more difficult. It is more and more obvious that as diplomats we do not conduct our business in a vacuum. We have to be aware of what is going on around us as never before. It used to be that the best of us were the ones who could write long telegrams describing what is going on in the country where we are stationed. But increasingly, there seems less and less time to read these telegrams, let alone to write them. Indeed as the State Department continues to modernize its communication we are actually doing away with the 150-year-old telegram altogether. We’re going to replace it with web pages and improved email processes which will stress point-to-point communication – and above all speed. In a sense, speed is becoming the dominant factor in our work. What is the point if my embassy reports something comprehensively, even brilliantly some two days later, when everyone has seen the news on the Internet and has also already taken action on it. In short, those old 16 page telegrams were brilliant, but they cannot compete when the objective is to be in on a fast-moving decision. This has also affected how we are organized. The old layered and compartmentalized look of bureaucracy cannot function as it did before. Economic issues have a way of being political. In fact, political issues are often economic, and even consular issues including visas have a way of being just about everything. (Again, I’ll get to that.) Increasingly, diplomats need to know each other’s jobs. If a political officer knows nothing about economics, he or she is not going to be very effective. And if a consular officer doesn’t understand politics, well … I’ll get to that a little later too. We know we must address the fast breaking issues that matter to the informed citizenry of a global information society. Because if we don’t, there are groups who are tailor-made to exploit these modern skills, such as the press and the nongovernmental sector – the NGOs. The press can move quickly because it must compete for a demanding public – and indeed that’s how it is structured. Who wants yesterday’s news? The NGOs, many of them of them focused on single issues from hunger to torture to health to nuclear disarmament, invest emotion and passion – attributes, which Talleyrand said in our business we should really try to avoid. You remember his quote: “Above all, no zeal,” he cautioned – but it’s precisely this zeal that gives the NGOs a huge incentive and desire to move with utmost speed and vigor. They have motivation, and their independence allows them to apply that motivation quickly. So we retool to compete. But there are in fact dangers as we retool our skills to deal with speed and connectivity: often we find that the urgent will crowd out the important, the immediate will take our attention from the long-lasting, and that even the fashionable – or popular – will drown out the sensible or wise. Let us not forget how we are different from the press and the NGOs. We represent our countries and our peoples: the press and the NGOs, even the best of them, do not. We have a responsibility to our countries which is best served by defining and reconciling national interests with the national interests of other countries. Our interests cannot be boiled down to a single set of issues, but must represent the broad values of the civilization that we all share. Our task is more than informing and being informed. We must offer more: we must offer knowledge that puts in order that information and makes sense of it, and, in turn, wisdom to apply it. Therefore a diplomat must not only be able to move fast and see connections (which I do hope is part of your curriculum), but also to relate this new tradecraft to our essential responsibilities. We cannot move quickly without directions, we cannot simply make random connections; rather we must be guided by something other than the other reaction of modern day stimulus. We must build upon a thorough understanding of our values, history, cultural affinities, and such realities as geography, economy and security. And this too should be part of our diplomatic training. The Polish-U.S. relationship is strong because it has these common historical and cultural elements. For starters, we like each other, and in a certain respect we think alike. We believe in speaking our minds, and we are willing to fight to preserve that God-given right. We celebrate each other as symbols in our national mythologies: Americans appreciate Polish bravery – perhaps sometimes more than Poles do. And Poles appreciate American opportunity – perhaps sometimes more than we do ourselves. Over the last decade and a half, we have learned to work together. In a recent speech at Whitehall Palace in London, President Bush articulated three guiding principles for American foreign policy. The first is to work with other responsible governments. But the President added that the success of multilateralism – that is, working with other governments and groups – is not measured by adherence to form alone … but by the results we achieve to keep our nations secure. This is a very important point because we believe that one of the strongest connections between the United States and Poland is a belief in function over form especially in the role of multilateralism. Some mistake multilateralism as a goal in itself, rather than as a tool to achieve successful diplomacy. The President enunciated a second pillar of our foreign policy, and that is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to restrain aggression and evil by force. Here, too, we feel a special tie to our Polish friends and we thank them for standing with us, for their courage on the battlefield and in the court of international public opinion. There are some who assume that all nations act reasonably and abide by the same rules. Those with the knowledge of our history and yours regret to inform them that such is not the case. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein did not act reasonably or abide by the rules. And he never intended to do so. To assume that one could negotiate with him in good faith, given his record on human rights, on ignoring United Nations Security Council resolutions, given his unprovoked aggression against his neighbors, and given his unrelenting hostility to Israel and the peace process is the height of naïveté. We are pleased that most of our Polish friends understand this. The third pillar enunciated by President Bush is “our commitment to the global expansion of democracy, and the hope and progress it brings, as the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror.” To this the President added, “We cannot rely exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security; lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance.” I believe this is something that Poles indeed do understand. In his remarks last July to the Polish troops heading to Iraq, President Kwasniewski had some wise words when he said, “We are not looking for easy profits or access to oil in Iraq. We set another task for ourselves: We wish to help the Iraqi people to build a modern state in which the principles of law will be respected.” These points give evidence to why the U.S.-Polish relationship is so strong and why we believe it will serve our mutual interests for years to come. But as diplomats, our duty to our countries is to cope with day-to-day realities, and align these day-to-day realities to the fundamental context of our relationship. This brings me back to the important issue of visas. Diplomats understand the importance of unhindered movement of people, of labor markets in a globalized economy, and especially the importance of the respect for the rule of law in finding solutions to these challenges. And yet, despite the breadth of our engagement; despite our previous attempts to regulate visa issues; and despite the demands of other institutional challenges, the visa issue has threatened to dominate bilateral ties to a point we never believed it could. As diplomats, we need to respect the concerns of our societies. I need to be aware and concerned about the protection of our borders, the protection of our labor markets, just as you need to address the interests of average citizens and their prosperity and dignity. Let me be very clear: these indeed issues deserve to be raised. We need to use our modernized tradecraft: moving quickly, organizing efficiently to be sensitive and effective in dealing with these public expectations. But – and this is important – we also need to keep our eye on the big picture of our relationship and remember the broader importance of our relationship. Of course, we cannot focus on the big picture without paying attention to what is bothering people. But we cannot focus on what is bothering people to the detriment of this broader context. Therefore, of course, we will work to find just and equitable solutions to the visa issues raised by our Polish friends. We cannot solve them overnight, and in many cases we must look for processes – to use that rather tired diplomatic word – rather than solutions. But here is what we have done to date: Since President Kwasniewski’s visit to Washington, we have already held high- level consular talks in Warsaw. As a result we are focusing on a number of initiatives. For example, there are presently legal ways that Poles can work in the United States, ways many Poles may not know. We need to work harder with the Polish government to identify and publicize these work opportunities. We already issue thousands of visas in the so-called H and J categories that allow qualified Poles legal employment in the United States. And should President Bush’s immigration reform proposals be passed by the Congress and become law, they will further open opportunities for Poles to work legally in the United States. In so doing, we hope – and indeed we ferverently hope – that such opportunities will reduce the abuse of tourist visas and eventually clear the way for Poles not to need visas for tourist purposes at all. We are also looking to create a system of pre-screening at the airport here in Poland that will help prevent circumstances under which some Poles at U.S. ports of entry have been turned around. We are committed to having this system up and running as soon as possible. We are also finding ways to alleviate the waiting period at the consulate. I have said many times that the worst moment of my day is when I come to work and see people lined up outside the embassy. Construction is now underway on a newer, larger waiting room in the consulate, and we have further renovations we plan to undertake as funds become available. In short, we are doing all we can to address the visa issue. But let me be very clear: as diplomats we would be irresponsible to make these important efforts in the visa area the sum of our common diplomacy with Poland. We must continue to work with our Polish friends on other bilateral and multilateral issues. We must prevent a situation where these issues become clouded. This year, as you have heard a thousand times, Poland will become a member of the European Union. Poland in the EU is part of a logical conclusion of a journey begun long ago, which affirms Poland’s identity through Europe. Poland is not becoming European. In fact, Poland is European and has been for centuries, but the accession process does carry with it a new set of challenges for Poland, not the least of which will be to maintain its special personality on the European continent. Poland has navigated through difficult waters fixing itself not only on its status as a European state but also on a strong commitment to the transatlantic relationship. This hasn’t always been easy for Polish diplomats, but they have been successful. Maintaining this course in the coming years and dealing with the myriad of problems that could divert Poland from this course is indeed a task for all the Polish people – but especially for its diplomats. Because, for you, let’s face it, it is a new age. As Foreign Minister Cimoszewicz recently said before the Sejm, with EU accession Polish diplomacy has achieved all its 1990’s objectives. Indeed, you made it! So welcome to the new crossroads, where you have to be quick and agile, well informed and wise – and, we hope, continue to work together to find solutions to the challenges of the new century.
|
