AMBASSADOR Robert Holmes Tuttle
Speeches, Remarks & Events
05 December 2006
Address by Ambassador Robert Tuttle to the Number 9 Society at The Caledonian Club
(As prepared for delivery)
When President Bush telephoned me almost two years ago, to ask me to take up the post of Ambassador to your great country, I was honored and thrilled. In addition to the normal ambassadorial duties, he also asked me to take up a particular mission in terms of public diplomacy.
He was aware that even in the best of relationships, there are issues that need to be discussed openly and in a spirit of progress and understanding, rather than brushed aside or passed over. He was determined that, as a country, the United States should listen and speak to, not only the government of the United Kingdom, but to its people as well.
Taking that to heart, in the sixteen months since I arrived, I have made over 30 trips across the UK - including three visits to Scotland. Through that travel, one thing stands clear: the United Kingdom contains enough diversity, innovation – and just plain excitement – for ten countries.
People often talk of the special relationship as primarily a government relationship, or a business relationship, but from what I have seen and heard, it is much deeper and more complicated than either of those labels suggests. It is made up of thousands, if not millions of personal contacts, friendships and exchanges that have built a strong and broad bridge between our countries, across which millions more will travel long after we are gone.
But as I said, in any relationship, there are issues to be dealt with, and so I would like to share with you just a few thoughts from my perspective:
The first is transatlantic in nature, but I would argue that it could have much wider implications - that is, the issue of the Extradition Treaty. There have been a lot of misunderstandings about this, on both sides of the Atlantic, so it is worth reminding ourselves what happened.
Far from creating an imbalance, the 2003 Extradition Treaty modernized the extradition arrangements between the United States and the United Kingdom. After the Treaty was signed, Parliament passed the Extradition Act of 2003, which corrected an imbalance in our extradition arrangements. What the parliamentary act did, was to effectively create the environment in which the standard of proof, in both jurisdictions, would be the equivalent of "probable cause."
I am very pleased that not only did the Senate Foreign Relations Committee support the Treaty unanimously, but after a lot of hard work by our Embassy in London, and by the White House and Whitehall – particularly by Baroness Scotland, who made such an impression on Capitol Hill – the Senate unanimously ratified the Treaty before they adjourned in September.
It is my hope that these arrangements will not only balance the process, but that they will help the authorities in the UK, the United States, and right across Europe, bring criminals who would use our countries as a refuge, to justice.
The second point is more a bundle of issues and much broader in scope, but I believe they are inextricably linked - to each other, and to the President's global agenda. Put simply, the President has consistently argued that our security, and the security of the world, depend on the expansion of freedom and democracy, and crucially, that the cornerstone of these liberties is economic progress for everyone.
How does that get put into action? One of the best examples I can think of is the U.S. Government's approach to aid for Africa and the treatment of HIV/AIDS. World Aids Day last Friday reminded us that you cannot hope to help a people who do not have the health to help themselves. A continent crippled by disease is, of course, a human tragedy - but, if left unaddressed, it could also become an economic, and a political tragedy, that has the potential to threaten the stability of the whole region.
That is why the President has traveled to Africa and met more African leaders than any previous U.S. President. It is why he has tripled assistance since the Clinton administration, and will double it again by 2012. It is also why, in partnership with host countries, the United States is now providing anti-retroviral treatment for over half a million people - up from only 50,000 just two years ago.
That brings me to my final point - the continuing global challenges of the Doha trade negotiations. U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson and Gordon Brown – an eminent Scot – recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal a powerful argument about the need to make the case for free trade. They pointed out that over the last thirty years, world trade has grown twice as fast as output – but more importantly, that the economies that have grown the fastest have been those that trade the most.
It is the President's belief in free trade that led to his bold proposal in October of 2005 to reform global agricultural trade. He offered substantial reductions in trade-distorting support measures and tariffs, along with the complete elimination of export subsidies. But as you know, the European Union, India, Brazil, and others have not yet matched our offer.
There are protectionist forces, inside our countries and elsewhere, that assert that increasing trade and openness will somehow damage the economies of the United States and the UK. They try to portray regulations and rules that inhibit competition as necessary for self-preservation, when in fact they are fundamentally self-defeating.
The United States was disappointed when the Doha talks were suspended last July, and since then, our team has been working non-stop, all over the world, to find a way forward because, realistically, we need to make some headway on Doha before the end of this year. I say that because the United States confronts the expiration of the President's Trade Promotion Authority in July 2007, and we run the risk of losing the ground so many people have worked so hard to gain.
The President is clear that freedom and economic prosperity go hand in hand, because trade creates incentives to cooperate, to negotiate, and to share. So, we will continue to stand with our friends, like Gordon Brown, and all our free-trade partners here in the UK, while looking and hoping for leadership from the EU and others to ensure progress. Even at this late date, Doha still represents our best opportunity to pursue both security and prosperity, not only for the West, but for those who have had neither for generations.
Much closer to home are the U.S. mid-term elections. I know there has been a great deal of interest here, so I thought I might conclude my comments today with what I see as the main themes coming out of those elections – and the potential way forward.
Since the end of World War II, the average loss at the mid-term point for a President in his second term, has been 29 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. This year's count resulted in roughly the same numbers, the Republicans losing 29 House and six Senate seats, with four House seats yet to be decided.
Since 1950, the party controlling the White House did not control either one, or both of the Houses of Congress, a majority of the time. So the Democrats' taking control of the Senate and the House has returned us to divided government. But that is a situation that has prevailed in 30 out of the last 56 years.
Yet the elections did send a message to the Republican Party and to the White House in particular. What was that message?
I believe there are three reasons for what the President called "a thumpin'": the situation in Iraq; domestic political scandals; and the number of moderates the Democrats put up in what had been solid Republican seats.
But what does that mean for the United States? Will policy change?
I believe the answer to that is yes and no, and in some areas we will have to wait and see.
One thing I do know is that foreign policy is largely the domain of the Executive Branch. It is set by the White House and implemented by the President's appointed Secretary of State.
Our election results did not change who is in charge or the Administration's policies. But at the same time, the people have sent a clear signal, and, while it will not be what you here in the UK would call a coalition, it will require a new kind of partnership and bi-partisanship.
Many people seem to assume that the President will find this difficult. But I think they should look to his record in Texas. When the President was Governor of that state, he presided over a divided legislature. Far from being divisive or corrosive, he was able to make progress on important issues facing the state and to make common cause with his Democratic opposition. In fact, Bob Bullock, a Democrat and Lieutenant Governor at the time, believed Governor Bush worked so hard in the state's interests, that Bullock was one of the first to predict that Governor Bush would one day be President.
I believe President Bush, the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, will be motivated by a range of reasons to achieve the same bi-partisanship the President was able to generate in his home state of Texas.
As the President himself said recently, "I've been around politics a long time; I understand when campaigns end, and I know when governing begins… If you hold grudges in this line of work, you're never going to get anything done.As the President himself said recently, "I've been around politics a long time; I understand when campaigns end, and I know when governing begins… If you hold grudges in this line of work, you're never going to get anything done."
Given that public diplomacy is central to the job of any ambassador, where better to be than in the United Kingdom, in the midst of one of the closest, most enduring relationships in history. Our bonds of history, language, and culture – much of it from Scotland in fact – have stood us in good stead for generations. But no relationship exists because of just shared history, even one as rich as ours. No, relationships grow and thrive because those in each new generation commit themselves to building new links, new expressions of shared aspirations, and refreshed visions of the future.
I was honored to be asked to represent my country to the United Kingdom, and I have been fascinated to listen and discuss the issues with groups such as yours. We need not always agree, but we have always agreed to listen to each other. That is surely the mark of a strong relationship and one that certainly knows how to get things done.
Thank you.
| 
Speeches, Remarks & Events