There could be no greater privilege for me than in receiving this award. David Rockefeller represents to all of us, I am sure, the essential qualities associated with the Trilateral Commission. His lifelong dedication to fostering inter-understanding through dialogue is a demonstration of the great qualities of the United States itself. History may sometimes reallocate credit for events to those who do not deserve it but there are too many witnesses, many of them present here this evening, to David’s intellectual material contributions to noble causes to break any contradiction. He is an idealist and an optimist. It was a French philosopher who said that to be a prophet it is necessary to be a pessimist. Few of us here today and least of all David himself would approve of that aphorism.

It takes a peculiar arrogance to even attempt the task I have been given. Of course I know that to comment on Europe’s view of the US is in reality a licence to express one’s own views and to masquerade as an objective commentator. I am reminded of the comment of Alfonso X of Spain, known as ‘the Wise’, in the 13th century who made the modest comment “Had I been present at the creation I would have had some useful hints for the better organising of the Universe”.

Europe views the United States today with an ambivalence born out of both American contradictions on the one hand and European pique at its own diminished stakes on the other. Let me say a word first about the contradictions. The undeniable contribution of the United States to the post World War II international order is not merely a historic memory of the contributions of Truman, Dean Acheson, George Marshall and those other “present at the creation”. Its commitment to internationalism has been demonstrated from time to time in the 90s. We would have had no Uruguay Round, no WTO and no NAFTA in the economic area without US leadership. In the political sphere the US has maintained a leadership role by contributions to peace in the Middle East. Former Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland to name but a few. Nobody really believes that the United States is

essentially isolationist and recent polls and peer group analysis support the view that, properly led, Americans are and wish to be engaged constructively in global affairs. Even though Robert Keohanis “autonomy illusion” remains prevalent in the US, as Fred Bergstein has pointed out in his Trilateral Essay on America’s Unilateralism, it is a myth. The US today is a part of the global economy in a way that demands positive engagement in multilateralism for example Daimler Chrysler, Bankers Trust Deutsche Bank, BP Amoco. The contradiction is found in the fearfully dangerous debates and allusions surrounding Congressional ratification of NAFTA and to a lesser extent GATT and the subsequent refusal of fast track authority. Let us be frank, it is difficult to negotiate with the US Congressional approval. These combined with the stridency of protectionists at extremes of left and right are a concern to us. There are other contradictions too. US Internationalism is denied by the attitudes to official development assistance at less than 1/10 of a % of GDP and the position of the US on multilateral organisation support. The United Nations Development Programme reported a couple of months ago that the worlds richest 20% account for 86% of total private consumption. The poorest 20% consume on 1.3%. 1.3bn. still earn less than $1 per day. Poverty remains the world’s most urgent moral challenge. Yet following the end of the Cold War there has been a disturbing tendency both here and in Europe to look at the widening gap with indifference. Who is to say that with real political leadership, US domestic constituencies and the wider world community of rich nations could not do more. Even if a moral imperative did not exist to address human suffering it would in any event, be in the self interest of developing countries to confront global poverty aggressively.

In the area of foreign policy, Security and defence, the structural institutional inadequacies of the EU have left us largely impotent. We believed President Kennedy when he advocated the second pillar. We still believe that the US wants us to empower ourselves. As Richard Holbrooke has pointed out in ‘To End a War’ it was our response feeble and frustrating. Whether it be Somalia,  Bosnia, Haiti or Rwanda if the US does not act nobody can do so effectively. No nation is immune to the error of an excess of self interest and none has a monopoly on good judgement. It cannot be good for the world nor the US that the current situation should persist. It may lead ultimately to an argument from the US for special treatment in other areas as a perverted compensation for its role in policing political crises elsewhere. Even friends like the US need those who can enter dialogue with them as equals rather than as supplicants or dependants and who can forcefully argue the merits of alternative approaches to vital issues. As the International Institute of Strategic Studies in UK has said “ in international trouble spots only the US has the capacity to lead and when it wishes to exercise the capacity to the full it is able to dictate the terms on which solutions can be found”. An enlightened US policy would be to push the Europeans to get this house in order. At the same time, NATO needs to redefine and expand its remit and should act as the fundamental institutional cement between us. Ghandi was once asked what had he to say about European civilisation, he said it would be a good idea. Well whatever our failings we have hopefully learned by better experience.

The development of a US global strategy rather than piecemeal responses in international affairs would be welcome. Particularly welcome would be a renewal of interest in and support for international institutions. Sovereignty anxieties here make this a difficult issue where adjudications are involved And yet this must be part of an interdependent world. We must surely advocate a sensible middle ground on sovereignty. World governance is not on the table. It is neither achievable nor desirable but absolute sovereignty is not a viable option either. Voluntarily participating in more robust international agreements will strengthen not diminish the US capacity to influence events which is after all, the essence of sovereignty.

We don’t object to US leadership we want it but we hope that it can be inspired by the inclusiveness and openness that has characterised the Trilateral Commission since its inception. Let’s make partnership and coalition for good a reality. Robert Schumann in 1950 said “International institutions will not be built at a stroke, nor constructed in accordance with an overall plan; it will be built on concrete achievements creating a de facto solidarity”. Nothing is achievable without men, nothing is durable without institutions.

This is the text of a speech delivered by Peter Sutherland on receiving The Trilaterial Commission’s David Rockefeller International Leadership Award