RESETTING THE WORLD

Jos Mara Aznar Transatlantic Center of the John Hopkins University April 28th, 2010

Thanks Ambassador Volker for introduction.

your

kind

Thank you also to the Transatlantic Center for bringing me here once again. My first visit was as a President of Spain; today Im here as a former President.

That can be both good and bad. It can be good, for you will not have to listen to how well I am doing as President. But it can be bad, as you may come across some comments on how well I would be doing if I were President nowadays.

Now serious, what I would like to share with you today are a few simple principles and ideas on how I thing the world is doing. And I would like to that very informally, very candidly.

Lets begin,

First, the World is not a computer.

I know that Washingtons foreign policy circles now find very fashionable to talk about re-starting, resetting, pressing the button, exit, and so on. But let me tell you something, I dont think the World resembles a PC, and least of all a clean and trendy IPad.

It is true that every new leader would love to introduce a new era of its own, but thats a mirage only real for those who are very nave. History cannot be stopped. Even when a new relationship among nations is growing, it doesnt happen from scratch. We cannot delete History. We cannot start

afresh. We cannot exit the World as we exit a software application.

Believing that we may leave the past in an old book just for historians is a dangerous proposition. Nations have History. Actually, Nations are made of History. There are strategic imperatives that should not be disregarded.

Second, even if it is not a computer, the World, as we know it, is bound to crash.

The World, our World, was founded and sustained by liberal and democratic ideals.

Essentially, the American ideals. World War II brought America as the defining force in the international arena ideologically, economically,

scientifically, strategically and culturally.

Today, the Western order is being attacked from many quarters, from outside as well as from the inside. As far as I can see, the adversaries of the

liberal-democratic and Atlantic order can be broken down into three major categories:

First, the anti-liberal forces have been reinforced in the last year and half due to the economic crisis. Populist voices have risen against our economic system which is built upon free markets, limited state presence, individual innovation and risk taking. And this has been done only to promote their agenda of higher state intervention, more public authority and less individual freedom.

Secondly, the national powers which feel that the current distribution of power in the world does not favor them, and therefore resent it as an injustice to their status or as an impediment to their ambitions. Those nations would like to be perceived and treated as more important of what they are today. And they are working to achieve that purpose by trying to impose themselves upon us on several issues or by undermining the policies of those who are

considered to be their rivals.

Im talking primarily of Russia and China, or even some populists regimes like Chavezs one. And also the role of some emerging countries.

Third, the revolutionary forces, state or stateless that would like to witness or provoke a systemic change, a completely new international system. We can include here nations like todays Iran with the ayatollahs nuclear ambitions or the global jihad led or inspired by groups like Al Qaeda.

The good news is that these forces are different both in nature and in scope, and have nothing to do with one another in the majority of cases. The bad news is that their individual effects tend to be accumulative. It is - allow me the metaphor - like when you open too many applications on your computer: it will eventually freeze.

Third, what you get is what you see.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, intrinsic to the threats I mentioned that will lead me to believe that there is nothing to do about them. On the

contrary, I do believe we have all the necessary tools at hand to beat our enemies and still prevail.

We only need three things: American leadership; a stronger Europe; and a common vision.

Unfortunately, we cannot see anything of the sort nowadays.

What can we see instead?

Firstly, an internationally reluctant American president; secondly, a Europe which is unable to overcome its many problems; and thirdly, a

progressively eroded Atlantic link.

Let me explain myself even clearer.

When Barack Obama won the presidential elections, everyone on Earth expected a change in

attitude from within the White House which would translate into an easier and closer relationship with Europe. You have to remember that in Europe, over 80% of people would have voted in favor of Barack Obama had they been able to.

On the contrary, what we have seen in a year or so into his mandate is that a special attention has been given to Moscow which contrasts with the very lukewarm reception provided to his Western allies. I dont think Im wrong when I say that the growing perception among the European elites today is that the American President is not interested in Europe at all. You can read it in Londons newspapers, where the special relationship is perceived as something of the past. This is also the case in other capitals from Berlin to Paris.

That is why it is very unfortunate to see that Europe is not a priority for the current US Administration. Not anymore. Whether we like it or not, current US priorities are focused elsewhere.

Furthermore, there is a growing perception of Obama as a president who is mainly concerned about improving the US image throughout the Muslin World. Even worse, he is being regarded as a president who has little affection for his traditional allies. For instance, the friction - if not open dispute between America and its staunched ally in the Middle East, Israel has been closely followed in Europe. Not because Europeans, all of a sudden, have become pro-Israelis, no. It is because we tend to consider this another proof belonging to a larger pattern: the unfair treatment by the White House towards its allies. This collides with the many open arms gestures directed to dubious regimes, like the Iranian one.

Fourth, between viruses and Trojan horses.

If the Europeans were stronger than America, I would not have spent so much time talking about the US President. But the fact is that we are not stronger and there is no foreseeable sign of becoming so anytime soon.

And thats why American leadership is as vitally important today as it was decades ago, when the post World War order was established.

It is true, Europe is a miracle of the evolution. We went from killing each other by dozens of millions, to rejecting the use of force almost under any circumstances. We were able to benefit from the longest period of peace in the Continent and account for a culture of endless prosperity. We created the European Union from a cold and steel common market. Really the history of UE is the history of prosperity.

Unfortunately our material achievements have not been matched by an increased responsibility to manage the World. Actually, under the present circumstances and we can talk about the economic crisis during the Q&A period if you want- it is even less likely that the European nations will accept to play a major role in the international arena. We will

be taken again by solving our own domestic problems.

In any case it is a paradox that when everyone was expecting a closer and better relation across the Atlantic, the fact is that due to different reasons, our expectations are not being fulfilled.

And when you dont feel comfortable, everything you do together becomes increasingly painful. Take for instance Afghanistan. It is true that many of the issues concerning the presence of NATO-Europe troops in that theater of operations is related to the growing military resistance found from the Taliban camp. Deaths are always difficult to cope with. But the public doubts have less to do with the casualties level than with the fact that a) nobody makes a clear case for fighting and dying in such a remote place once Al Qaeda is not a threat from there; and b) when there is the feeling that the US is getting ready to leave.

10

Fifth, the outlook of a World without America.

If the US were exhausted from fighting too long in too many places; if the US were tired of fighting irregular wars or irregular enemies where victory is an elusive concept to the metrics of wining; If the US were moving to an increasingly less engaged or exposed posture in the World, rediscovering

containment and strategic isolationism, then it would be understandable. But it would be a mistake.

Nobody yet is able to take over Americas place, and probably nobody will in a long time. Those who defend the virtues of a multi-polar world where the US is just another regular country will soon find themselves in a non-polar universe, spinning out of control.

Think about it: Russia happily reestablishing its cherished sphere of influence over major parts of Eastern Europe; Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and positioning itself as hegemonic in the Gulf; or the

11

jihadist seeing in the withdrawal from Afghanistan the paper tiger they saw in the Soviet Union back in 1989.

Besides, a more economically protectionist America will put in danger any short-term recovery of the World economy. Actually it will give new impetus to the anti-capitalist axis that goes from Beijing to Teheran and through Caracas.

Sixth, what is needed: A Western World 2.0

Im an optimistic. I have always been. And despite what I have presented to you, I do believe we can react and limit some of the more dangerous risks if not all of them. We only need to have a clear vision of what we want and what we dont.

For instance, we need to recuperate the trust in the economic system, because without it, no sustainable growth is possible. And our societies depend on growth. I would like for the principles that

12

have inspired our achievements of the past to be recovered. And I would like for the mistakes of the past that unnecessarily prolonged previous crisis to be avoided.

I do not believe that the best formula for solving a crisis of private indebtedness is raising the level of public indebtedness.

Nor do I believe that the best way to prevent similar crises in the future will rely on bigger Government and increased public intervention in private affairs. Seeking to fight the crisis with

policies rooted in more and more public spending, unsustainable public deficit and huge amounts of public debt is a very serious mistake. We will have to foot the bill for a long time.

The World does not need more socialism; we had enough of it in the Twentieth Century. We do not need a re-edition of socialist policies in the Twenty first Century. We already know the outcome.

13

Second, we must recreate the institutions that have been the cornerstone of the Atlantic World. NATO to begin with. The world will require an effective and cohesive military alliance. NATO has been an excellent tool as such in the past and it should be so in the future. Nonetheless some major changes must be introduced into the Organization. Several years ago I defended in a report called NATO: An Alliance for Freedom that the allies should develop a transatlantic homeland security

component in order to fight jihadist terrorism; as well as NATO should open its doors to those democratic countries that were willing and able to make a contribution to the collective security, from Japan to Israel. I still think that the best way to ensure a clear western identity and effectiveness for the Alliance.

Third, we in Europe must do our homework so we can overcome our huge economic difficulties; we must set aside past irrelevant institutional debates

14

and establish ourselves as a reliable partner and ally of America.

Fourth, America and Europe, the Atlantic world, must also strengthen their economic ties. That is why I have been for so long advocating for an Open Atlantic Prosperity Area: this means full transatlantic economic integration, a 100% barrier-free

transatlantic market.

European and US citizens would benefit from increased competition, trade and investment, innovation strengthened and higher

greater

productivity, leading to substantial and permanent welfare gains in terms of higher growth and more and better jobs.

Finally, we are what we stand for. And we must defend our values, our World, which is now being attacked. I understand that policies like the freedom agenda that was pushed forward by President Bush provokes rejection today, but we should not forget

15

that America and freedom have become de facto synonyms.

Dear friends, we have to be proud of our identity. It is our deep belief in our identity what makes us strong.

The defense of our ideals cannot be a tepid enterprise. On the contrary, people around this increasingly confusing world are waiting for answers. And the only valid answers are ours. From economics to education, from justice to culture, we hold the banner of progress, freedom and security, from Manhattan to Kandahar, from California to Iran.

Thank you very much for your attention

16