American
Diplomacy and the Global Environmental Challenges of the 21st Century
Q&A on April 9, 1996 After Address by Secretary of State
Warren Christopher
Stanford University April 9, 1996
MODERATOR:
The Secretary has agreed to take questions. There are two microphones
-- one over there and one supposedly over there that I cannot see
-- and I encourage you to come forward to the microphone. I am a law
professor: if you don't volunteer, I call on you. (Laughter)
QUESTION: I'd like to first thank you for doing this -- for making a speech about the environment and being the Secretary of State, all in the same basket. It seems like something that hasn't happened in recent memory. I'd also like to comment on generally the trend of your comment. One thing that you said, that there was a false dichotomy, as mentioned by President Clinton, between growth and the environment. Another point you mentioned that neither the environment nor trade will be compromised, and at another point you mentioned that a goal of the Administration is to spur global growth with agreements with the European Union. What this all brings to mind for me is the idea that there aren't really any ecological or natural-resource based limits to the amount of economic growth that can happen in the world, and that seems to be a fundamental misconception from my point of view about the course of future environmental events and economic events. It seems that no one is willing to say, "Maybe there is a limit to how much we can grow. Maybe there is a limit to what we can produce economically to the amount of trade there is." I think this idea is highlighted by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which is, I think, the single most important thing that the Administration to this date has done with regard to the environment and a very negative thing -- as far as I know anything about it, which is, I admit, is not very deeply -- but I do know that it --
MODERATOR: Make it a little shorter, please. (Laughter)
QUESTION: Okay. How can America, at the same time that we support a company like McDonald's by giving them subsidies, say a few million dollars, to promote themselves in other countries? You mentioned at one point the cars that spew out carbon dioxide. Americans own half the cars in the world. So if we promote the American lifestyle with the general populace, how can we keep growing at the rate we are and promote this kind of lifestyle?
MODERATOR: Thank you, I think that was a softball question.
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I'm glad that at least one person in the audience carefully listened to my remarks. Thank you very much. I share President Clinton's view that it's a false choice between the two. Certainly we've not, by any means, reached the limit of our growth compatible with protecting the environment. You used the example of the automobile. But the United States also leads the way in ensuring that automobiles do not create pollution. You go around the world and you see the lower standards with respect to automobile exhaust and you understand that the United States has been in the vanguard of that effort as well. I was very struck when I was in Manaus, on the Amazon, to talk with the Governor of the province where Manaus is. He said, "We've learned here in Brazil as well that you have to reconcile the demands of the environment and the economy." In earlier years, you'd never expect the Governor of that region to be saying things like that. So I think we're all learning ways that we can reconcile those demands. They're not easy. I don't want to make these problems seem too easy. If I were to criticize my own speech today, it would be not to have emphasized the difficulties enough. The main thing is to keep working at it and find ways to reconcile the two in the interests of our citizens, which is, after all, what this is all about.
QUESTION: First, on behalf of the (inaudible), we thank you for your kind remarks about our organization. You also commented in the communist context on the connection between societies that abuse their people and societies that abuse their environment. We are obviously seeing a very tragic example of that problem play itself currently in Nigeria, where a society is abusing its people at least in part so that it can continue to abuse its environment. Can you brief us on the current progress of your efforts and this Administration's efforts to achieve international consensus on actions to be taken against the Nigerian regime?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: First, on your general point. It seems to be one of the laws of international behavior that countries that abuse their people also abuse the environment. Haiti is a classic example of that as well. With respect to Nigeria, we're strongly opposed to the conduct of the regime there and we're trying to lead an international consensus to bring home to that regime that their conduct will not go unpunished in international circles. It's always a difficult balance of concern about the people of the country wanting to impose sanctions or take steps that will send effective messages to the leaders of the regime, and at the same time not impose unnecessary burdens on the people of the country. There's really no perfect solution to that problem. But let me say that our Administration is determined to take whatever steps we can to try to persuade that regime to return to the path of reform, to permit the recent elections to have the given effect. But most of all to stop their really terrible abuses of human rights of the citizens. I can't offer any great prescriptions here. We have had a series of special Ambassadors, special emissaries to Nigeria. The problem is unresolved but very much on our agenda, working with the Commonwealth countries, working with the United Kingdom and others who share our deep concern for Nigeria. I remember it was only a few years ago that Nigeria was regarded as one of the most promising emerging countries in the entire world. Now, it has slipped back with poor leadership and with abuse of its peoples.
QUESTION: Two brief questions, Mr. Secretary. The first one is a follow-up to the previous question this gentleman had. The real (inaudible) highlighted the divergence and environment, and what is perceived as an environmental problem between the north and the south, and (inaudible) consumption as a strong environmental problem. I wonder if there has been thought on linking sustainable development with sustainable consumption in both the north and the south? The second question is, has there been any thought on looking at the problem of intellectual property rights as you try to partner with businesses to export U.S. environmental technology to countries like China and the developing world which do not have respect for intellectual property rights and for better or worse, cannot affect (inaudible) U.S. technology?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: On the first question, with respect to north/south issues. No doubt, trying to promote sustainable development around the world and to make it compatible with sustainable consumption remains a very challenging issue. One thing that has happened over this last period, though, is that the tensions between the two have given way to an understanding of the need for cooperation. For example, at the Conference on Sustainable Development this year in Bolivia, we'll be focusing with many developing countries on ways to promote sustainable development in a cooperative endeavor rather than in a tense endeavor. On the second part of your question, it is one of the highest priorities of the State Department to work with American businesses in order to enable them to get an even larger share of the $400 billion market that appears to be out there in environmental technologies around the world. This is a classic case of being able to do good while doing well, because we are probably more advanced than any other country in the world in environmental technologies and we want to make those available around the world. Our embassies around the world are instructed to give the highest degree of cooperation to American companies who are trying to gain that kind of business.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you spoke in your speech that you'll be using mostly bilateral, regional, and a partnership message to implement this new environmental policy. I think that you recognized also in your speech that this is a uniquely multilateral problem for all the people of the world. As a member of the Stanford Model United Nations Group, I'd like to ask how you're going to work -- the State Department and the Clinton Administration is going to work within existing structures, including the United Nations and the United Nations Environmental Program, to implement policies?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I'm glad to see that somebody else listened to my speech carefully. As I said, we are going to use the remainder of 1996 to try to ensure that 1997 is a banner year on the environment. We'll be working through the United Nations. There are a number of things that we'll be focusing on. First, there is the United Nations conference on the cities, called Urbanization in Istanbul, and we'll be working to make that a major success. We'll be working on the conference in Bolivia that I mentioned. We'll be, generally speaking, using the tremendous engine that the United Nations is to try to reach agreement. There are two important treaties that were negotiated with United Nations help, which hopefully we can get confirmed in the Congress this year -- the Biodiversity Treaty and the Law of the Sea Treaty -- although their congressional prospects, I must say, are less good than I wish they were. But I think the overall answer to your question is that I think only a combination of the various approaches that I mentioned -- both globally through the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, regionally through the regional institutions bilaterally and also to business and NGOs can we address this problem. No one of those approaches is adequate. I understood your reference to your involvement in the United Nations, and that's highly commendable. I think that the United Nations is perhaps underrated for the amount that they have accomplished. The United Nations has gotten a black eye because of some failures in the peacekeeping area. But day in and day out, as you know better than I, the United Nations does extremely important things in the areas of health, environment, and so forth. So we'll continue to support the United Nations and use it as a mechanism to address these environmental problems.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I was wondering if the State Department has any plans on how to deal with third-world nations. I feel that rapid development, even with all those negative consequences for the environment, is the only way to enter the global economy.
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: That's a fair question. The answer to it is that we regularly counsel third-world nations to try to have a balance between development and their concern for the environment and other aspects of life. I think it's very shortsighted for them to go hell bent on the economy, but it's very seductive for countries that see economic growth as the sole goal of their nation. The United States, with all of its resources and power and influence, mainly can be a persuasive force here. There are some possible carrots and sticks we can use. For example, we have many environmental programs around the world. We will tend to use those environmental programs in countries where there are some real prospects of a future, where the countries seem to have a concern for their environment. There are some particular sanctions that might be employed; but more than that, I think I'd like to emphasize the importance of counseling by the United States, trying to persuade countries to take the long view, to insure balanced progress, because that progress is likely to be a permanent, tangible progress rather than just a short-term gain. Maybe one more.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, my question is related to a past question. I'm currently a Malaysian studying in the (inaudible) Master's Program in the Earth Systems Department of Stanford. As you know, Malaysia has a lot of natural resources, and we also have a problem with economic development. I'd like to know specifically how this American foreign policy tends to -- would like to deal with the issues. You mentioned counseling, but as far as (inaudible), Prime Minister is often outspoken that counseling is not enough, because we need natural resources to promote economic growth. So is there anything else besides just pure counseling that you think would be in the agenda for American foreign policy?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I think I grasp the essence of your question. Of course, Malaysia is one of the tremendous success stories of Asia at the present time. The growth is really quite fabulous. Driving in from the airport to Kuala Lumpur you see a staggering amount of growth. I'm sure it comes at some cost. We meet with Malaysian leaders -- President Mahathir and others -- on a regular basis in APEC -- the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum -- where Malaysia has the advantage of conferring and dealing with the other Asian nations, especially the ASEAN nations, of which it is such a prominent part. I think that it's important for them to learn lessons from their fellow Asian countries. The United States has to be very careful not to be in a position of lecturing on this kind of a subject. A country with as rapid growth as Malaysia, though, obviously has to take into account the need for balance, the need to insure that it will work in the long run. But those dynamic countries of Southeast Asia, I think, are moving forward in a tremendously rapid way. They are our largest growing customer in that region. I can't offer anything better than to say to you we will continue to work with countries like Malaysia in the many forums where we meet them. Bilaterally, Prime Minister Mahathir has been here. I've been there more than once. I meet them. I'll be meeting them again this summer. They'll draw strength not only bilaterally from the United States but regionally in the ASEAN forum and in broader international forums such as APEC. I'm sure that the neighbors probably have the biggest influence on Malaysia, but we'll try to have an appropriate influence as well. Thank you all. I'm very sorry to leave these questions unanswered. I greatly enjoyed being here. (Sustained applause)
QUESTION: I'd like to first thank you for doing this -- for making a speech about the environment and being the Secretary of State, all in the same basket. It seems like something that hasn't happened in recent memory. I'd also like to comment on generally the trend of your comment. One thing that you said, that there was a false dichotomy, as mentioned by President Clinton, between growth and the environment. Another point you mentioned that neither the environment nor trade will be compromised, and at another point you mentioned that a goal of the Administration is to spur global growth with agreements with the European Union. What this all brings to mind for me is the idea that there aren't really any ecological or natural-resource based limits to the amount of economic growth that can happen in the world, and that seems to be a fundamental misconception from my point of view about the course of future environmental events and economic events. It seems that no one is willing to say, "Maybe there is a limit to how much we can grow. Maybe there is a limit to what we can produce economically to the amount of trade there is." I think this idea is highlighted by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which is, I think, the single most important thing that the Administration to this date has done with regard to the environment and a very negative thing -- as far as I know anything about it, which is, I admit, is not very deeply -- but I do know that it --
MODERATOR: Make it a little shorter, please. (Laughter)
QUESTION: Okay. How can America, at the same time that we support a company like McDonald's by giving them subsidies, say a few million dollars, to promote themselves in other countries? You mentioned at one point the cars that spew out carbon dioxide. Americans own half the cars in the world. So if we promote the American lifestyle with the general populace, how can we keep growing at the rate we are and promote this kind of lifestyle?
MODERATOR: Thank you, I think that was a softball question.
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I'm glad that at least one person in the audience carefully listened to my remarks. Thank you very much. I share President Clinton's view that it's a false choice between the two. Certainly we've not, by any means, reached the limit of our growth compatible with protecting the environment. You used the example of the automobile. But the United States also leads the way in ensuring that automobiles do not create pollution. You go around the world and you see the lower standards with respect to automobile exhaust and you understand that the United States has been in the vanguard of that effort as well. I was very struck when I was in Manaus, on the Amazon, to talk with the Governor of the province where Manaus is. He said, "We've learned here in Brazil as well that you have to reconcile the demands of the environment and the economy." In earlier years, you'd never expect the Governor of that region to be saying things like that. So I think we're all learning ways that we can reconcile those demands. They're not easy. I don't want to make these problems seem too easy. If I were to criticize my own speech today, it would be not to have emphasized the difficulties enough. The main thing is to keep working at it and find ways to reconcile the two in the interests of our citizens, which is, after all, what this is all about.
QUESTION: First, on behalf of the (inaudible), we thank you for your kind remarks about our organization. You also commented in the communist context on the connection between societies that abuse their people and societies that abuse their environment. We are obviously seeing a very tragic example of that problem play itself currently in Nigeria, where a society is abusing its people at least in part so that it can continue to abuse its environment. Can you brief us on the current progress of your efforts and this Administration's efforts to achieve international consensus on actions to be taken against the Nigerian regime?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: First, on your general point. It seems to be one of the laws of international behavior that countries that abuse their people also abuse the environment. Haiti is a classic example of that as well. With respect to Nigeria, we're strongly opposed to the conduct of the regime there and we're trying to lead an international consensus to bring home to that regime that their conduct will not go unpunished in international circles. It's always a difficult balance of concern about the people of the country wanting to impose sanctions or take steps that will send effective messages to the leaders of the regime, and at the same time not impose unnecessary burdens on the people of the country. There's really no perfect solution to that problem. But let me say that our Administration is determined to take whatever steps we can to try to persuade that regime to return to the path of reform, to permit the recent elections to have the given effect. But most of all to stop their really terrible abuses of human rights of the citizens. I can't offer any great prescriptions here. We have had a series of special Ambassadors, special emissaries to Nigeria. The problem is unresolved but very much on our agenda, working with the Commonwealth countries, working with the United Kingdom and others who share our deep concern for Nigeria. I remember it was only a few years ago that Nigeria was regarded as one of the most promising emerging countries in the entire world. Now, it has slipped back with poor leadership and with abuse of its peoples.
QUESTION: Two brief questions, Mr. Secretary. The first one is a follow-up to the previous question this gentleman had. The real (inaudible) highlighted the divergence and environment, and what is perceived as an environmental problem between the north and the south, and (inaudible) consumption as a strong environmental problem. I wonder if there has been thought on linking sustainable development with sustainable consumption in both the north and the south? The second question is, has there been any thought on looking at the problem of intellectual property rights as you try to partner with businesses to export U.S. environmental technology to countries like China and the developing world which do not have respect for intellectual property rights and for better or worse, cannot affect (inaudible) U.S. technology?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: On the first question, with respect to north/south issues. No doubt, trying to promote sustainable development around the world and to make it compatible with sustainable consumption remains a very challenging issue. One thing that has happened over this last period, though, is that the tensions between the two have given way to an understanding of the need for cooperation. For example, at the Conference on Sustainable Development this year in Bolivia, we'll be focusing with many developing countries on ways to promote sustainable development in a cooperative endeavor rather than in a tense endeavor. On the second part of your question, it is one of the highest priorities of the State Department to work with American businesses in order to enable them to get an even larger share of the $400 billion market that appears to be out there in environmental technologies around the world. This is a classic case of being able to do good while doing well, because we are probably more advanced than any other country in the world in environmental technologies and we want to make those available around the world. Our embassies around the world are instructed to give the highest degree of cooperation to American companies who are trying to gain that kind of business.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you spoke in your speech that you'll be using mostly bilateral, regional, and a partnership message to implement this new environmental policy. I think that you recognized also in your speech that this is a uniquely multilateral problem for all the people of the world. As a member of the Stanford Model United Nations Group, I'd like to ask how you're going to work -- the State Department and the Clinton Administration is going to work within existing structures, including the United Nations and the United Nations Environmental Program, to implement policies?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I'm glad to see that somebody else listened to my speech carefully. As I said, we are going to use the remainder of 1996 to try to ensure that 1997 is a banner year on the environment. We'll be working through the United Nations. There are a number of things that we'll be focusing on. First, there is the United Nations conference on the cities, called Urbanization in Istanbul, and we'll be working to make that a major success. We'll be working on the conference in Bolivia that I mentioned. We'll be, generally speaking, using the tremendous engine that the United Nations is to try to reach agreement. There are two important treaties that were negotiated with United Nations help, which hopefully we can get confirmed in the Congress this year -- the Biodiversity Treaty and the Law of the Sea Treaty -- although their congressional prospects, I must say, are less good than I wish they were. But I think the overall answer to your question is that I think only a combination of the various approaches that I mentioned -- both globally through the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, regionally through the regional institutions bilaterally and also to business and NGOs can we address this problem. No one of those approaches is adequate. I understood your reference to your involvement in the United Nations, and that's highly commendable. I think that the United Nations is perhaps underrated for the amount that they have accomplished. The United Nations has gotten a black eye because of some failures in the peacekeeping area. But day in and day out, as you know better than I, the United Nations does extremely important things in the areas of health, environment, and so forth. So we'll continue to support the United Nations and use it as a mechanism to address these environmental problems.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I was wondering if the State Department has any plans on how to deal with third-world nations. I feel that rapid development, even with all those negative consequences for the environment, is the only way to enter the global economy.
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: That's a fair question. The answer to it is that we regularly counsel third-world nations to try to have a balance between development and their concern for the environment and other aspects of life. I think it's very shortsighted for them to go hell bent on the economy, but it's very seductive for countries that see economic growth as the sole goal of their nation. The United States, with all of its resources and power and influence, mainly can be a persuasive force here. There are some possible carrots and sticks we can use. For example, we have many environmental programs around the world. We will tend to use those environmental programs in countries where there are some real prospects of a future, where the countries seem to have a concern for their environment. There are some particular sanctions that might be employed; but more than that, I think I'd like to emphasize the importance of counseling by the United States, trying to persuade countries to take the long view, to insure balanced progress, because that progress is likely to be a permanent, tangible progress rather than just a short-term gain. Maybe one more.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, my question is related to a past question. I'm currently a Malaysian studying in the (inaudible) Master's Program in the Earth Systems Department of Stanford. As you know, Malaysia has a lot of natural resources, and we also have a problem with economic development. I'd like to know specifically how this American foreign policy tends to -- would like to deal with the issues. You mentioned counseling, but as far as (inaudible), Prime Minister is often outspoken that counseling is not enough, because we need natural resources to promote economic growth. So is there anything else besides just pure counseling that you think would be in the agenda for American foreign policy?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I think I grasp the essence of your question. Of course, Malaysia is one of the tremendous success stories of Asia at the present time. The growth is really quite fabulous. Driving in from the airport to Kuala Lumpur you see a staggering amount of growth. I'm sure it comes at some cost. We meet with Malaysian leaders -- President Mahathir and others -- on a regular basis in APEC -- the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum -- where Malaysia has the advantage of conferring and dealing with the other Asian nations, especially the ASEAN nations, of which it is such a prominent part. I think that it's important for them to learn lessons from their fellow Asian countries. The United States has to be very careful not to be in a position of lecturing on this kind of a subject. A country with as rapid growth as Malaysia, though, obviously has to take into account the need for balance, the need to insure that it will work in the long run. But those dynamic countries of Southeast Asia, I think, are moving forward in a tremendously rapid way. They are our largest growing customer in that region. I can't offer anything better than to say to you we will continue to work with countries like Malaysia in the many forums where we meet them. Bilaterally, Prime Minister Mahathir has been here. I've been there more than once. I meet them. I'll be meeting them again this summer. They'll draw strength not only bilaterally from the United States but regionally in the ASEAN forum and in broader international forums such as APEC. I'm sure that the neighbors probably have the biggest influence on Malaysia, but we'll try to have an appropriate influence as well. Thank you all. I'm very sorry to leave these questions unanswered. I greatly enjoyed being here. (Sustained applause)
