******
If there’s one thing we’ve learned this election season,
it’s that a few words from Bill Clinton can do any man a lot of good. After
that introduction, I guess all I have to do is wait a day or two for the
bounce.
Since serving as President here in America, President
Clinton has devoted himself to lifting the downtrodden around the world. One of
the best things that can happen to any cause, to any people, is to have Bill
Clinton as its advocate. That is how needy and neglected causes have become
global initiatives. It is that work that invites us here today.
As I have watched the astounding impact of this Initiative
from afar, I have been impressed by the extraordinary power you have derived by
harnessing together different people of different backgrounds, and different
institutions of different persuasions. You have fashioned partnerships across
traditional boundaries — public and private, for-profit and nonprofit,
charitable and commercial.
On a smaller scale, I have seen partnerships like this work
before. In Massachusetts, two social pioneers brought corporations and
government and volunteers together to form City Year, the model for Americorps.
I sat with then candidate for President Bill Clinton as he investigated the
life-changing successes which occurred when young people came together for a
year of service, linked in teams with corporate sponsors. Then, as the head of
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, I saw again the stunning success than comes when
the disparate elements of a community join together in unity, to overcome
challenges that had seemed insurmountable before.
The Clinton Global Initiative has also demonstrated the
effectiveness of entrepreneurship and social enterprise. You endeavor to not
only comfort the afflicted, but to also change lives thorough freedom, free
enterprise, and the incomparable dignity of work.
Free enterprise has done more to bless humanity than any
other economic system not only because it is the only system that creates a
prosperous middle class, but also because it is the only system where the
individual enjoys the freedom to guide and build his or her own life. Free
enterprise cannot only make us better off financially, it can make us better
people.
Ours is a compassionate nation. We look around us and see
withering suffering. Our hearts break. While we make up just 4.5 percent of the
world’s population, we donate nearly a quarter of all global foreign aid—more
than twice as much as any other country. And Americans give more than money.
Pastors like Rick Warren lead mission trips that send thousands of Americans
around the world, bringing aid and comfort to the poorest places on the planet.
American troops are first on the scene of natural disasters. An earthquake
strikes Haiti and care packages from America are among the first to arrive –
and not far behind are former Presidents Clinton and Bush.
But too often our passion for charity is tempered by our
sense that our aid is not always effective. We see stories of cases where
American aid has been diverted to corrupt governments. We wonder why years of
aid and relief seem never to extinguish the hardship, why the suffering
persists decade after decade.
Perhaps some of our disappointments are due to our failure
to recognize just how much the developing world has changed. Many of our foreign
aid efforts were designed at a time when government development assistance
accounted for roughly 70 percent of all resources flowing to developing
nations. Today, 82 percent of the resources flowing into the developing world
come from the private sector. If foreign aid can leverage this massive
investment by private enterprise, it may exponentially expand the ability to
not only care for those who suffer, but also to change lives.
Private enterprise is having a greater and greater positive
impact in the developing world. The John Deere Company embarked upon a pilot
project in Africa where it developed a suite of farm tools that could be
attached to a very small tractor. John Deere has also worked to expand the
availability of capital to farmers so they can maintain and develop their
businesses. The result has been a good investment for John Deere and greater
opportunity for African farmers, who are now able to grow more crops, and to
provide for more plentiful lives.
For American foreign aid to become more effective, it must
embrace the power of partnerships, access the transformative nature of free
enterprise, and leverage the abundant resources that can come from the private
sector.
There are three, quite legitimate, objects of our foreign
aid.
First, to address humanitarian need. Such is the case with
the PEPFAR initiative, which has given medical treatment to millions suffering
from HIV and AIDS.
Second, to foster a substantial United States strategic
interest, be it military, diplomatic, or economic.
And there is a third purpose, one that will receive more
attention and a much higher priority in a Romney Administration. And that is
aid that elevates people and brings about lasting change in communities and in
nations.
Many Americans are troubled by the developments in the
Middle East. Syria has witnessed the killing of tens of thousands of people.
The president of Egypt is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Our Ambassador to
Libya was assassinated in a terrorist attack. And Iran is moving toward nuclear
weapons capability. We feel that we are at the mercy of events, rather than
shaping events.
I am often asked why, and what can we do to lead the Middle
East to stability, to ease the suffering and the anger and the hate.
Religious extremism is certainly part of the problem. But
that’s not the whole story.
The population of the Middle East is young, particularly
compared with the population of the West. And typically, these young people
have few job prospects and the levels of youth unemployment across the region
are excessive and chronic. In nations that have undergone a change in
leadership recently, young people have greater access to information that was
once carefully guarded by tyrants and dictators. They see the good as well as
the bad in surrounding societies. They can now organize across vast regions,
mobilizing populations. Idle, humiliated by poverty, and crushed by government
corruption, their frustration and anger grows.
In such a setting, for America to change lives, to change
communities and nations in the Middle East, foreign aid must also play a role.
And the shape that role should take was brought into focus by the life and
death of Muhammed Bouazizi of Tunisia, the street vendor whose self-immolation
sparked the Arab Spring.
He was just 26-years-old. He had provided for his family
since he was a young boy. He worked a small fruit stand, selling to passers-by.
The regular harassment by corrupt bureaucrats was elevated one day when they
took crates of his fruit and his weighing scales away from him.
On the day of his protest, witnesses say that an officer
slapped Bouazizi and he cried out, “Why are you doing this to me? I’m a simple
person, and I just want to work.” I just want to work.
Work. That must be at the heart of our effort to help people
build economies that can create jobs for people, young and old alike. Work
builds self-esteem. It transforms minds from fantasy and fanaticism to reality
and grounding. Work will not long tolerate corruption nor quietly endure the
brazen theft by government of the product of hard-working men and women.
To foster work and enterprise in the Middle East and in
other developing countries, I will initiate “Prosperity Pacts.” Working with
the private sector, the program will identify the barriers to investment,
trade, and entrepreneurialism in developing nations. In exchange for removing
those barriers and opening their markets to U.S. investment and trade,
developing nations will receive U.S. assistance packages focused on developing
the institutions of liberty, the rule of law, and property rights.
We will focus our efforts on small and medium-size
businesses. Microfinance has been an effective tool at promoting enterprise and
prosperity, but we must expand support to small and medium-size businesses that
are too large for microfinance, but too small for traditional banks.
The aim of a much larger share of our aid must be the
promotion of work and the fostering of free enterprise. Nothing we can do as a nation
will change lives and nations more effectively and permanently than sharing the
insight that lies at the foundation of America’s own economy–free people
pursuing happiness in their own ways build a strong and prosperous nation.
When I was in business, I traveled to many other countries.
I was often struck by the vast difference in wealth among nations. True, some
of that was due to geography. Rich countries often had natural resources like
mineral deposits or ample waterways. But in some cases, all that separated a
rich country from a poor one was a faint line on a map. Countries that were
physically right next to each other were economically worlds apart. Just think
of North and South Korea.
I became convinced that the crucial difference between these
countries wasn’t geography. I noticed the most successful countries shared
something in common. They were the freest. They protected the rights of the
individual. They enforced the rule of law. And they encouraged free enterprise.
They understood that economic freedom is the only force in history that has
consistently lifted people out of poverty – and kept people out of poverty.
A temporary aid package can jolt an economy. It can fund
some projects. It can pay some bills. It can employ some people some of the
time. But it can’t sustain an economy—not for long. It can’t pull the whole
cart—because at some point, the money runs out.
But an assistance program that helps unleash free enterprise
creates enduring prosperity. Free enterprise is based on mutual exchange—or,
rather, millions of exchanges—millions of people trading, buying, selling,
building, investing. Yes, it has its ups and downs. It isn’t perfect. But it’s
more durable. It’s more reliable. And ultimately, as history shows, it’s more
successful.
The best example of the good free enterprise can do for the
developing world is the example of the developed world itself. My friend Arthur
Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out that before the
year 1800, living standards in the West were appalling. A person born in the
eighteenth century lived essentially as his great-great-grandfather had. Life
was filled with disease and danger.
But starting in 1800, the West began two centuries of free
enterprise and trade. Living standards rose. Literacy spread. Health improved.
In our own country, between 1820 and 1998, real per capita GDP increased
twenty-two-fold.
As the most prosperous nation in history, it is our duty to
keep the engine of prosperity running—to open markets across the globe and to
spread prosperity to all corners of the earth. We should do it because it’s the
right moral course to help others.
But it is also economically the smart thing to do. In our
export industries, the typical job pays above what comparable workers make in other
industries, and more than one-third of manufacturing jobs are tied to exports.
Sadly, we have lost over half a million manufacturing jobs over the last three
and a half years.
As president, I will reverse this trend by ensuring we have
trade that works for America. I will negotiate new trade agreements, ask
Congress to reinstate Trade Promotion Authority, complete negotiations to
expand the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and create what I call a “Reagan Economic
Zone,” where any nation willing to play by the rules can participate in a new
community committed to fair and free trade.
I’ve laid out a new approach for a new era. We’ll couple aid
with trade and private investment to empower individuals, encourage innovators,
and reward entrepreneurs.
Today, we face a world with unprecedented challenges and
complexities. We should not forget—and cannot forget—that not far from here, a
voice of unspeakable evil and hatred has spoken out, threatening Israel and the
civilized world. But we come together knowing that the bitterness of hate is no
match for the strength of love.
In the weeks ahead, I will continue to speak to these
challenges and the opportunities that this moment presents us. I will go beyond
foreign assistance and describe what I believe America’s strategy should be to
secure our interests and ideals during this uncertain time.
A year from now, I hope to return to this meeting as
president, having made substantial progress toward achieving the reforms I’ve
outlined. But I also hope to remind the world of the goodness and the bigness
of the American heart. I will never apologize for America. I believe that
America has been one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever known.
We can hold that knowledge in our hearts with humility and unwavering conviction.
Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you all very much.
The very fact that he was at a Clinton gathering should be proof to you that the Democrats and Republicans are one party. But then, you should have known it since Obama and McCain told bad jokes at the same dinner party shortly before election day 08.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you'll get it when Romney doesn't repeal Obamacare. Since, after all, it was originally Romneycare.
Did you miss my several statements to the effect that Romney was not my choice? But, if you think Obama and Romney on even close to being on the same, you are simply not paying ANY attention.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you miss the fact that the tea-party patriot nation is driving GOP politics. Give us two more election cycles (4 years total) and there will be no doubt.
At least, Romney is a patriot. Obama is a one world collectivist and a global redistributionist. Romney is none of this.
One more thing: I do understand your frustration. The facts of your comments are correct. There is concern that Romney might not repeal ObamaCare. But he has promised that he would do so, on the first day of his term, and do so via executive order and/or "reconciliation."
ReplyDeleteWill he resubmit some of the benefits of ObamaCare. I certainly hope so. Will he wind up with a watered down version of RomneyCare? I do not think so. Not that he might be willing to do so, but if he did, the tea-party would declare open war on the man and Paul Ryan's days in politics would be over.