Membership

Operating in an Age of Uncertainty: New Challenges in
Humanitarian and Development Work

Secretary Colin L. Powell Plenary Address
May 18, 2004

(12:30 p.m. EDT)

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, thank you very much, David, for that kind and gracious introduction. It's a great pleasure for me to be with you all today, following my man, Bono.

(Laughter.)

I am especially pleased to offer congratulations on your 20th anniversary of good for the people of the world. I hope you understand, and I know you do understand, but hear it from me directly, that your work is so very, very noble. Your work is so very, very necessary for a world in which human dignity is respected and in a world in which people live in fear and in hope.

It's a world that needs your work more than ever. And if you do your work well, if you continue to restore human dignity to groups who thought they had lost all dignity, if you continue to provide hope to people who think they are living in hopeless circumstances, then you are helping to create a world where tyrants and terrorists cannot thrive.

I value this opportunity to speak to this gathering of leaders of humanitarian and development organizations, to speak to you about President Bush’s deep commitment to easing human suffering, promoting democracy and development across the globe.

This commitment is reflected in a document called the National Security Strategy of the United States. When we issued it a couple of years back, it got a lot of attention because of a couple of sentences in it that talked about preemptive action, and people thought that that's what the whole document was about.

But if you read the whole document, you'll find that the document lingers at length on many other issues besides preemptive action. The document talks at great length about alliance management. It talks about partnerships. It talks about the United States joining with other nations around the world to deal with the problems that we face, whether they are problems involving rogue regimes or poverty, suffering, disease.

The National Security Strategy also discusses other things we are doing, our efforts to control proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The great bulk of that document talks about our humanitarian and development strategy. It speaks about America’s determination to work as a force for freedom. It describes at length free trade and new American initiatives in economic development assistance, free trade so that people can share the benefits of free trade with each other and generate wealth -- free trade, provide jobs for people who are in need, jobs that are better than any development program, jobs that allow people to have dignity and not just be on the dole, but to be able to create their own wealth because people are willing to invest in their country. And the document addresses the mounting problem of meeting global public health challenges.

In each one of these cases, the strategy put forward by President Bush for meeting these challenges entails not just working in partnership with other governments, but really entails close cooperation with you all, close cooperation with non-governmental organizations. With you, in partnership with us, we seek to build a better world.

With you, we want to help establish vibrant civil societies where none have previously existed or have gone dormant. With you, we want to foster good governance. We want to help poor nations onto the path to sustainable development. We want to stem infectious diseases, which increasingly is the weapons of mass destruction on the face of the earth. With you, we want to be able to respond to humanitarian crises and to help reconstruct war-torn countries.

We want to cooperate with you, but we also, at the same time, recognize the unique nature of the organizations, and therefore we want to cooperate with you in a way that respects your independence, which permits you to do your essential work with greater flexibility, work that we could not do well. You are able to reach out and do grassroots work in ways governmental organizations cannot. You minister directly to those in misery, meeting their most basic needs for food, water and shelter.

And government performs functions that NGOs cannot, making laws, setting policy, conducting diplomacy with other governments, managing the international financial systems, and, in some cases, when necessary, taking military action.

Without competing with you or trying to replace you, we in government can help your worldwide efforts, such as those you have undertaken in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You are making invaluable contributions to Iraq’s reconstruction. You have empowered communities throughout Iraq and are having a profound positive impact on the daily lives of so many Iraqis.

Under the USAID-run Community Action Program, NGOs are promoting citizen participation in identifying community needs and then meeting those needs using local resources and, increasingly, using the funds that have been made available by the American people through the supplemental that was passed a few months back. The Community Action Program has helped establish more than 650 citizen action groups across Iraq to fund and implement more than 1300 high-priority development and reconstruction projects.

You don't see much about this in the newspapers. You don't see it in television very much. We know the challenge we have with security. We know how that dominates the daily news. And we know that that is the picture you see most often on your evening television news programs.

But underneath that, a lot of good things are happening, a lot of good things of the kind I just described, for which you are responsible, taking risks in doing it, and it is those good things that you are doing working with the coalition and with Iraqi leaders that ultimately will make us successful in Iraq, once the security situation is brought under control.

In Afghanistan, NGOs have played a major role in the greatest refugee success story in modern times: the return of approximately three million Afghan refugees after years of asylum in Pakistan and Iran. You are providing many of those essentials of life that they need while they go about reintegrating themselves into Afghan society and building a new future for themselves. And along with your international organization partners, NGOs are helping to create jobs and other business opportunities necessary to make this historic humanitarian success story a durable one, one that lasts. Going back to your country is one thing. Having something to do, and a way to earn a living, and a way to build a family is another thing. And that's where your work comes in.

We recognize, especially, that so many of you operate in difficult, but beyond difficult, dangerous, increasingly dangerous conditions. Thirty six aid workers have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of hostilities and twenty eight have been killed in Afghanistan since March 2003. Your colleagues died giving the people of Afghanistan and Iraq a new beginning, and the finest tribute we can pay to their memories is to ensure that their selfless work continues.

As United Nations Undersecretary Jan Egeland said recently, a new era in humanitarian work began after the bombing of the United Nations building in Baghdad last year. Now, in some places, humanitarian organizations are being intentionally targeted because they are humanitarian organizations. In the past, the threat tended to local, but, increasingly, the threat is regional and even international, under auspices of evil organizations and evil people such as al-Qaida and Usama bin Laden.

Such is the nature of terrorists and others who derive power from chaos and conflict and from the suffering of innocent civilians.

We and our coalition partners will redouble our efforts to improve the security situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so that you can carry out the full breadth of your critical humanitarian mission.

Another area we will continue to work in with all of our energy is to deal with one of the most serious crises on the face of the earth now, and that's the situation in Sudan and the Darfur region. We are doing everything that we can to improve the situation, but it's not enough. We have to do more. We have been able to get some relief into the suffering people of Darfur.

The World Food Program distributed 7,800 metric tons of food in April and they hope to distribute between nine to 10,000 metric tons of food this month. The assistance will help feed half a million people, but many more are in need and have not been reachable. USAID has now sent seven planes to Nyala with non-food items and we plan to get many more in as we can in the days ahead.

We are pressing the Government of Sudan for unrestricted access to Darfur. We are urging other governments to do the same. I have been talking to my colleagues in the G-8, in the European Union, and elsewhere, to tell them that the whole international community must come together to put pressure on the Government of Sudan, in order to get the access we need, and to get the supplies in, to call off the militias who are doing such a terrible thing to the poor people in this troubled region. Though access has improved somewhat since we brought the parties together for last month’s signing of the ceasefire, access clearly remains inadequate.

We share your deep concern at the reports of increasing violence, including attacks by the Jingaweit and clashes between the Government of Sudan and the rebels. We have called on all parties to observe the ceasefire and for the Government of Sudan to rein in these lawless militias immediately.

As you know, we are playing an active role in standing up the ceasefire monitoring commission under African Union auspices. The African Union reconnaissance team reported recently to the African Union, yesterday, as a matter of fact, and the team is meeting on Thursday with the rebels and the Government of Sudan. And we are supplying the logistical assets for an advance team to begin the monitoring operation as early as next week.

Meanwhile, the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement are still working on a framework agreement at Lake Naivasha in Kenya. We are pressing them as hard as we can. And they are getting closer, but they are not quite there, but we are still hopeful of an agreement in the not-too-distant future. And if that takes place, then, hopefully, conditions might be created to allow us to do a better job in dealing with the crisis in Darfur.

We will not reduce our pressure on the Government of Sudan regarding Darfur. We have told the Government of Sudan that we will not normalize relations, even with an agreement at Lake Naivasha, until the crisis in Darfur is addressed. And I have spoken to the President, the Vice President, to voice our dissatisfaction, and I have urged them to take immediate action to stop these militias and to allow unfettered access for relief organizations and for international monitors.

We'll keep the pressure up. We'll work with our friends at the United Nations, to get a strong statement out of the United Nations on this terrible issue. Sooner or later, we will, hopefully, hopefully, achieve peace and stability. Over one half million Sudanese refugees will have the opportunity to go home. More importantly, we will have to work to ensure that they and the more than five million people who are displaced within Sudan have safe passage to return when the time is right.

Beyond our support for international relief, protection and reconstruction efforts, the Bush Administration is committed to doing other things that foster long-term democratic and economic reform and worldwide well being.

President Bush’s bold development initiative called the Millennium Challenge Account is one such initiative. I'm very proud of this program.

Congress gave us $1 billion to get it started. We will ask for another two-and-a-half billion dollars in this upcoming fiscal year. And, hopefully, by 2006, with Congress's support, and with some success under our belt, we can get $5 billion a year for the Millennium Challenge Account.

As you know, it is run by a corporation, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and I'm privileged to be the Chairman of the Board of that corporation. And just a few days ago, we selected the first 16 countries to be funded from the first $1 billion we have. We're looking for multiyear programs, multiyear funding so that we can plan and have some stability in our programs.

The 16 countries met the standards that we put before it, some more so than others. It was a fascinating process to sit at the board meeting and to examine all of the countries. As you know, the Millennium Challenge Account is going to those countries that have made a commitment to democracy, made a commitment to the rule of law, the ending of corruption, civil rights, human rights for all of its citizens, the integration of women fully into the society.

In other words, those countries that are deserving of this kind of additional support, to get them on a positive road to development until that day arrives when development is no longer needed because they're up and running, and they can pull in investment, and they are sustaining themselves by their efforts and by trade.

Ten of the countries on that list of 16 met all of our initial criteria. They looked good. They are ready. They have made progress. Several others, three others, to be exact, had some deficiencies. But, nevertheless, they seemed to be going in the right direction, so we felt it appropriate to include them in the list.

And then we picked three countries that have seen significant change in their political and social environment in recent months. They do not have a long track record, but the nature of the leadership and the kinds of action they are taking now, suggested to us that we could place an investment in these countries, right now, when they need it the most, that would have the greatest payoff for us.

And we picked three countries like that because we wanted to show to everyone it wasn't just a cookie cutter. You have to meet standards and every single standard has to be met or you don't get picked. We took some that were a little below those standards, but we knew they were going in the right direction, and we took a bit of a chance on three others because they have made such dramatic improvements in recent months.

We did something else. We, then, said there is a group of countries that we could call threshold countries. They are not where they need to be to totally benefit from the opportunities in the Millennium Challenge Account, but they seem to know where they have to be going.

So let's preserve some of our money, make it available, for some investments in these threshold companies in order to get them closer to the standards, and maybe next year we can include them in the program, or the year after that.

And so I am very pleased that this program is off to the right kind of start. And I think we will achieve the vision that the President set out for us, and that the Congress has appropriated the money for. At the same time, this has not been done at the expense of our normal AID-type development funding. We have been able to increase that funding significantly over the last several years as well.

So across the board, with the Millennium Challenge Account and our normal development assistance accounts, I think President Bush and his Administration have shown their commitment for the kind of work that you all are involved in on a daily basis, helping those in need, helping those who are committed to a better future for their people, helping those who, especially, are committed to democracy and human rights.

All of us recognize that advances that have been made over the decades in international efforts to provide development assistance could all be undermined and ruined, if we don't do something about the crisis that is before the world on HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases.

And the President responded to this need, as well, with this emergency fund for HIV/AIDS, $15 billion going to these focus countries that have been selected. In addition, many, many other billions of dollars worth of funding goes to NIH and other agencies of the United States Government that are looking for cures, that are looking for vaccines, looking for other ways of dealing with this dreaded disease.

As the Secretary of State, I spend as much time on this particular issue, HIV/AIDS, as just about anything else I work on, because I can see the impact that this issue has on foreign policy, on our own self-interest. If we do not bring this crisis under control, we will see, not only families destroyed, but societies destroyed, democracy destroyed, and the promise of the future for an entire country, an entire society destroyed. And so there is nothing more important than this.

(Applause.)

You can argue about what the best approach is. Our approach is to push for abstinence. We know that works. Push for being faithful. We know that works. Push for the use of condoms. And we have significantly increased the purchase of condoms during the course of this Administration, understanding, however, that a condom is of no use if it isn't used among high risk populations.

And so that is part of the educational challenge that we have: to educate people with respect to abstinence, especially, young people; to educate people to the simple value of being faithful to a partner; and third, if a need arises because of risky behavior, or to protect yourself, make sure that condoms are available and that they are used for those who are at greatest risk of infection.

We speak candidly about this. I speak openly about it. I have spoken on MTV about this from time to time. The fact of the matter is, we've got to speak openly and candidly to our children, to our fellow adults who are at risk of this infection because it is a destroyer of nations.

We also have to make sure that those who are affected, those who do carry the virus, those who do have the illness are treated with respect, are treated with dignity, are cared for. We've made some important decisions over the last several days with respect to combined drugs and generic drugs.

This goes to the policy that the President has laid out, that we should do everything we can to help these people who are desperately in need. And the one thing we also have to speak out about loudly and clearly is that it is an illness and you should not be stereotyped by it. You should not be set aside. You should not be pushed aside. You're a fellow human being and you are to be respected and cared for, not shunned.

(Applause.)

The simple message I came here to convey to you is that we are partners together. You are no more committed to helping people in need than I am, I no more than you. We're in this together. You do it out of a sense of humanity and caring, and love of your fellow man, your fellow woman. I do it out of the same value system and from the perspective as you do.

But in addition, as the senior diplomat of United States of America, I can see the consequences if we don't do this. I can see the consequences for our foreign policy. I can see the consequences of people who are living in poverty, who are affected by disease in such terrible ways, people who wonder if anyone cares for them. What good is democracy if my new found political system of democracy does not put food on my table, does not bring health care into my home, does not help me build a home, does not provide an education for my children? What kind of political system is that? Why should I place my faith in it?

So as we talk about democracy, and we believe democracy is the correct system, we believe it's the best way for people to be free to pursue their dreams, their aspirations, their God-given destinies.

But unless we also make sure that within that democracy that we preach of, we are doing the right thing with respect to development programs, investment programs, economic programs, social programs, healthcare programs, then it is all for not, if we don't help people to see the value of democracy.

And it can't be done by the government. It has to be done by our government, the government of the countries concerned.

But above all, what a powerful, strong, committed corps of non-governmental organization workers -- volunteers, such as you, and NGOs, such as you, every organization represented here today, is playing a vital role in taking care of our fellow human beings, and also assisting in U.S. foreign policy, a foreign policy that simply says: We want to help the people of the world lead better lives. We want to put hope into the hearts of their children. And if we do that, then we will be serving the purposes of mankind, that we will be serving the highest instincts and value system of our nation. We'll be doing what the American people want us to do.

Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Nancy, the Secretary has time for a couple questions. Nancy Lindborg, you want to ask?

SECRETARY POWELL: Did you see that? An NGO. She saw someone in need, and there she was. (Laughter.) It's been a rough three days, thank you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, we so appreciate your being with us here today and all the comments that you've made --

A PARTICIPANT: Is your microphone one?

SECRETARY POWELL: Mike on.

QUESTION: How's that?

SECRETARY POWELL: Better.

QUESTION: I'll start over. Mr. Secretary, we very much appreciate your being with us today and we're honored that you could join us, and appreciate your comments in support of what all of us are trying to do.

In particular, you touched on a lot of things that really touch us and we are discussing a great deal here. And we appreciate your understanding of the need for us to be independent in our work, and I think all of us believe that we can be the most effective and valuable partner when we are able to be independent.

And, in particular, as these environments in which we are working grow increasingly dangerous, there's a growing concern that as we -- as there are efforts to tie us more closely in with military efforts, and the more closely associated the military is with humanitarian actors and humanitarian activities, that will actually undermine our security and our ability to be as effective as we all want us to be.

There's a question of whether Afghanistan and Iraq are precedent or anomalies, and I'd appreciate very much your thoughts on that as we look to the future.

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I hope they're anomalies, but they're very big anomalies. I mean, I hope that -- (laughter). I do not want to go through one of those every few months. (Laughter.)

But the fact of the matter is Iraq and Afghanistan are fairly unique situations, where you are not free to ignore the security and sort of distrust and the fact that people will respect and honor what you are doing. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are a threat to the success of the terrorists who keep us from being successful with respect to putting in place a democracy. And so they see the military as a threat because we will try to take them on and destroy them, but they see that your efforts to be a threat to their evil motives because you are bringing hope to people that they don't want to have hope. They want these people simply to make us go away, and we aren't going away.

And so I think, in both Afghanistan and Iraq particularly, it's important for us to find the right balance between security and your sense of independence. And we were talking about this at the office earlier today, and we have to make sure that in our discussions with our military colleagues in the Pentagon, and as Ambassador Negroponte gets ready to go over and assume responsibility for our embassy there, we instruct our individuals at every level, in both the political and military side, that while they have a responsibility for American citizens and NGOs in providing a security environment, they have to do it in a way that does not stomp on your independence or in any way suggests that you are an agent of the United States Government or you are beholden to the United States Government.

That would undercut your effort, as you say, and make you less effective. And we don't want you to be less effective. We want you to be more effective.

MODERATOR: Bill Reese here.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I'm Bill Reese of the International --

MODERATOR: Turn on the mike.

SECRETARY POWELL: Go ahead, Bill.

QUESTION: -- International Youth Foundation. Mine is the resource question. I bet half the room here wasn't born when the Alliance for Progress was started. Some of us were in short pants. You were probably starting your careers.

But you and this President have put more money on the table for development assistance than any other administration in our lifetime, and Andrew Natsios likes to talk about the Marshall Plan, the Alliance for Progress, and now the Millennium Challenge Account and all the other initiatives (inaudible). You put muscle behind the (inaudible) international security (inaudible) and now development has resources, as it should, and a recognition, along with diplomacy and defense.

But we're worried that as the negotiations go on on the Hill as to how all these line items and programs and accounts will play out, that the Millennium Challenge Account and the HIV/AIDS program, which are the two biggest, but there are other initiatives you've brought forward, will either get cut or will squeeze out the other development assistance programs. And it's those countries that (inaudible) accounts, the core accounts, as we call them, are those that security and stability are important so that one day they can become a threshold country, maybe (inaudible) the MCC .

Could you comment on (inaudible)?

SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, it's a concern. Every year, you're always competing. It's never a walk in the park at budget time. And I was pleased that we were able to get the $1 billion to get the MCA started, and I'm very pleased that as a result of hard work on the part of Andrew and the folks at USAID and the State Department, it wasn't at the expense of his development work.

In fact, I think Andrew would say to you we've almost doubled what USAID and those other accounts have in them over the last three years. That, in and of itself, would be a remarkable accomplishment from previous years, but on top of that to also get the Millennium Challenge Account at a billion and then 2.5 and then 5, is quite an achievement and we're very proud of it.

Now, there is also no question that we've got a fight in front of us over the summer and into the fall because the Congress always is trying to figure out how to balance everything. And the $2.5 billion in the Millennium Challenge Account has got a little light on it that says, "Take a look at this."

And what I've been saying to them is, no, don't take a look at that because we have to be able, even if we've only started with 16 countries, we have to be able to demonstrate to those 16 and to everybody else that this isn't just a flash, you know, a flash across the midnight sky; this is a continuing program. And so you have to start funding it every year and not use this as the piggy bank to solve other problems.

And so we'll continue to make that case. We will continue to fight for full funding for the Millennium Challenge Account and we'll continue to fight for full funding for our HIV/AIDS accounts.

It's not that Congress doesn't like these program. They like these programs. They have no trouble on the merits. The problem, as always, is how much money is available. And so we have pocketed the fact that these are popular programs, people believe in them, and now we'll fight to make sure they're adequately funded.

Thank you very much. I have to get to the White House. Thank you.