Clinton interview "I love Europe" and more

by Jerome a Paris
Wed Aug 10th, 2005 at 06:25:55 AM EST

In a must-read interview in the French daily Le Monde to promote his new "Clinton Global Initiative (the website of which can be found here for more info), Clinton said a number of things that should be re-used as much as possible.

He has decided to focus on 4 themes, and talks about these in the interview:

  • harnessing religion to solve problems instead of causing them;
  • setting new economic and technological strategies to fight global warming;
  • fighting poverty;
  • improving governance in developing countries.

(all translations below by me. All errors mine).



Nous ne sommes pas face à des problèmes faciles, mais nous connaissons les solutions pour les résoudre. Cela ne va pas au-delà de nos possibilités humaines. Le seul problème est de les mettre en oeuvre rapidement. Les politiques tergiversent, c'est frustrant. Alors, c'est à la société civile de prendre le relais.

We are facing difficult problems, but we do know the solutions to solve them. They are not beyond our human capabilities. The only problem is to implement them. Politicians won't commit themselves, it's frustrating. so it is up to civil society to do it.

(...)

Prenez le réchauffement climatique. C'est un problème extrêmement grave. Il a le potentiel pour détruire la civilisation. La solution se trouve en grande partie dans les entreprises et le secteur privé. Il faut leur démontrer le potentiel de croissance, de développement, de progrès technologiques et de profits des énergies propres. Les entreprises de la vieille énergie sont très organisées, riches et politiquement influentes. Celles des énergies nouvelles sont décentralisées, sous-capitalisées et sans réel pouvoir politique. Il faut modifier ces rapports de forces. Les gouvernements ne peuvent pas résoudre toutes les difficultés.

Take global warming. It's a really serious problem, which can destroy our civilisation. The solutions are for a large part with corporations and the private sector. We have to demonstrate to them the potential for growth, development, technological progress and profit that can be found in clean energies. The companies of old energy are highly organised, rich and politically influential. Companies from new energies are decentralised, under-capitalised and without any real political power. We must change their realtive power. Governments cannot solve all these problems.

(...)

Vous vous attaquez aussi au terrorisme, même si vous cachez ce mot derrière ceux de religion et de conflit.

You also talk about terrorism, even if you hide this word behind those of "religion" and "conflict"

C'est volontaire. Pour s'en prendre au fondamentalisme, il faut porter atteinte à la crédibilité de celui qui dit "J'accomplis la volonté de Dieu". Il y a deux possibilités. Démontrer que la politique n'a rien à voir avec Dieu, qu'elle est humaine, imparfaite, perfectible. C'est difficile dans un grand nombre de sociétés. Il y a une autre stratégie, plus efficace, qui consiste à détruire la légitimité de l'idéologie qui s'appuie faussement sur la religion pour créer et entretenir des conflits. La religion doit devenir un moyen de régler les conflits.

It's on purpose. To fight fundamentalism, you need to hit the credibility of those that say "I act in the name of God". There are two ways. One is to demonstrate the politics have nothing to do with God, that they are human, imperfect, to be improved. It's hard in a number of societies. The other strategy, more effective, is to destry the legitimacy of the ideology which uses religion to create and feed conflicts. Religion should be a way to solve conflicts.

L'image des Etats-Unis s'est fortement dégradée depuis plusieurs années, particulièrement dans le monde musulman. Cela alimente le terrorisme et la crainte d'un choc des civilisations. Vous pensez avoir des solutions ?

The image of the USA has been badly damaged in recent years, especially in the Muslim world. The feeds terrorism and the fear of a civilisation clash. Do you have solutions?

(...)

Quand nous montrons que nous pouvons être désintéressés, que nous voulons construire un monde avec les autres, en comprenant leurs problèmes, en les aidant dans notre propre intérêt et en partageant des objectifs communs, cela ne peut qu'améliorer notre image. C'est aussi la raison d'être de mon initiative.

Et c'est une nécessité en matière de sécurité. Nous ne pouvons pas nous isoler du monde derrière des murs. Nous ne pouvons pas tuer tous nos ennemis. Nous avons besoin d'une stratégie qui crée plus de partenaires et moins de terroristes. Le destin des Américains est étroitement lié à celui des autres peuples.

When we show we can be generous, that we want to build a world with other, by understanding their problems, helping tyhem in our own self-interest, and by sharing common objectives, it can only improve our image. That's the raison d'être of my initiative.

Ansd it is necessary for our security. We cannot isolate ourselves from the world behind walls. We cannot kill all our enemies. We need a strategy that creates more partners and fewer terrorists. The destiny of Americans is tightly linked to that of others.

(...)

On n'est jamais trop ambitieux et optimiste. Il ne faut pas se décourager face aux difficultés. Ce message vous concerne, vous Français et Européens. J'aime la France et j'aime l'Europe. Le rejet de la Constitution m'a désolé. Mais il s'agit seulement d'un obstacle sur la route. Vous ne vous rendez presque plus compte de la difficulté de construire quelque chose qui n'a jamais été fait auparavant. Il est difficile de surmonter les réflexes identitaires nationaux. Mais vous allez y parvenir. Le monde a besoin de l'Europe et de la démonstration que l'intelligence, la raison, la bonne volonté sont plus fortes que les fatalités de l'histoire.

You are never too ambitious or too optimistic. Don't be discouraged by difficulties. This is also a message for you in France and in Europe. I love France and I love Europe. The "non" to the Constitution saddened me, but it was just a bump on the road. You have almost forgotten how difficult it is to build something that has never been attempted before. It is very hard to get over national identity politics, but you will succeed. The world needs Europe, and needs the demonstration that intelligence, reason, goodwill are stronger than the fatality of history.

  • Civil society
  • no to religion in politics
  • fighting terrorism is an ideological battle (not a war)
  • global warming is a priority, as are alternative energies
  • the US cannot ignore the rest of the world
  • Europe is a great project
  • never lose your optimism

I love this guy!
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
"I love this guy!"  As do I...and voted for him twice!  How I miss him.  And how utterly painful it is that we now have a "leader" with the intellectual acumen of a bobblehead doll.  Ack, I need some coffee.

But thanks for this diary, Jerome. 'Twas indeed nice to awake to news of Bill.

by caldonia on Wed Aug 10th, 2005 at 07:46:34 AM EST
OK, a 4 for Clinton!

Seriously, the approach to global warming seems realistic (encouragement of a change in the balance of power in the energy industries). The choice of poverty as a major theme is right, imo. These two really matter hugely.

And his message to Europe seems heartfelt. Good for Bill!

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Aug 10th, 2005 at 07:49:14 AM EST
I was such a young, radical lefty that I was forever riding Clinton about everything he did.  The 2000 election aged me.  In retrospect, I miss Clinton.  Was he perfect?  No.  But he was indeed pretty damn good - this interview demonstrates a maturity America needs to re-find.

Ei lakia tarvita kun sovinnossa eletäen.
by environmentalist on Wed Aug 10th, 2005 at 08:22:13 AM EST
My views were kind of the opposite. I had a positive view of Clinton for eight years, even despite my dislike of much of what he did or how he did it ('social reforms', economic nationalism, soft imperialism, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Palestine, foot-dragging on Kyoto etc.) primarily because he represented a hope, a hope for starting positive changes sometime soon. But after the eight years were over and those changes didn't come, only his record counted.

Since then, I learnt more about the economy, and about the DLC, and what Clinton let Greenspan do or did himself at home and his help for the global neoliberal 'revolution', and how the DLC philosophy of power kind of let the basis for the Bush victory be built by the Right, was much worse than what I perceived contemporarily.

As for the current issue, it's good Clinton is talking about the right things, but I feel he is talking hot air - and we don't need words (should the Democrats regain power). Specifically, I think action on global warming does primarily need government action (which Clinton wasn't bold enough for), not civil society.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Aug 10th, 2005 at 08:40:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Clinton and Gore were in office for eight years, and much of what's wrong now (not all, obviously) is the result of their policies. To choose just one, it is all fine and good for them to talk about how we should do something about global warming, but they're the ones who caved into the automaker unions and failed to press for tighter CAFE standards, thus encouraging the spread of SUVs.

Korea, Iraq, Israel, NAFTA, and a bunch of other policies were either guided or supported by Clinton. Bush has been in office for "only" 4.5 years, so every single problem of the world can't be laid at his feet.

It's easy to be an out-of-power politician because "anything is possible" from that viewpoint. But a message like that coming from somebody who has already held the Presidency is pretty lame.

by asdf on Wed Aug 10th, 2005 at 03:31:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
.
But a message like that coming from somebody who has already held the Presidency is pretty lame.

A Powerful Statement!

I can agree Clinton was a better president than his performance and policy statements since.

Jimmy Carter is our best ex-president, earning a well deserved Nobel Peace Award, Jimmy's tenure as president was inadequate. Viewing the hostage taking in Tehran in 1979 from outside the US in the Netherlands, I was very critical of Carter's failure to resolve the crisis. See appeasement of terror in Germany on a number of occasions, I was sure Carter would take any military steps necessary to assert the strength of the US in the ME and amongst Arab nations. Especially after the oil rich states had the West in a strangle hold, the OIL BOYCOT after the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

This failure cost him the election of 1980, gave Ronald Reagan and young neocons the presidency from 1980 thru 1992, and ultimately young George Bush from '00-'08. Reagon con suis brought us and the world the havoc of Osama Bin Laden's mujadeen, Iraq's Saddam Hussein support against Iran, Pakistan's Islam atom bomb and the present state of world affairs.

When you need to take a stand, fight your own battle and do not let another nation do the fighting for you!

After thought of ex-leaders Ruud Lubbers, men who have been in power, is certainly lame.

~~~

by Oui on Thu Aug 11th, 2005 at 08:03:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The singlest most effective economic strategy to fighting global poverty would be the elimination of agricultural subsidies, tariffs, & etc.  

Never going to happen, willingly.

Eventually, the affect of rising oil prices will force a switch from mono-cropping to diversification but the transition will be long and painful.  

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Wed Aug 10th, 2005 at 05:43:18 PM EST
The singlest most effective economic strategy to fighting global poverty would be the elimination of agricultural subsidies, tariffs, & etc.

Unfortunately, the above is untrue.

First, if some Africans can sell more food to Europe and the USA, that will make only them richer - other Africans will still hunger. The present famine in Niger (yes, that Niger - the yellowcake-producing Niger; Americans would do good to care more about this famine than the Plame case) was not caused by insufficient crop returns, but newly 'liberalised' prices (at Western demand) that made even locally produced food too expensive to buy for many.

Second, while trade in food between Europe and Africa and the poorer part of Latin America is not liberalised, it is still on-going by way of special quotas. (The USA used to attack the EU banana quotas at the WTO.) Who would benefit from trade liberalisation? Not the poorest: the poorest would be out-competed by industrialised agriculture in countries like Brazil and Argentine (or more precisely, by large landowners in those countries who run industrialised agriculture).

Unfortunately, saving the Third World by fair trade is another neoliberal mirage.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Aug 11th, 2005 at 06:14:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
America couldn't care less about Niger. That one's squarely in France's court: France's colony, France's uranium market, France's problem.
by asdf on Thu Aug 11th, 2005 at 01:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The second paragraph is entirely too simple.

It ignores the increasing transportation costs, input costs of food production, and time to market.

The assumption the economy is linear is incorrect.  

The prediction X follows Y in the current economic climate (Technically, Fitness Landscape) necessarily limits future economic activity to X always following Y  is incorrect.

I agree the neoliberal - I assume DoDo is refering to Neo-Classical economic theory - position that "Free Trade" is a panacea is incorrect.

And please see my response to Colman, below.


No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Sat Aug 13th, 2005 at 02:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why free trade has costs for developing countries - subs only I'm afraid, but I'll quote these two paragraphs:

Unfortunately, the evidence is not particularly persuasive. Even the World Bank estimates that removing rich countries' barriers to developing country exports would generate only very small income gains for the latter. When fully removed by 2015, developing countries as a group might experience a gross domestic product increase of 0.6 per cent. Almost all the gains would be concentrated in fewer than a dozen developing countries, and many would actually lose from rich country trade liberalisation in key sectors. The ending of the multi-fibre agreement early this year, for example, has hurt textile exporters across the developing world as super-efficient producers in China gobble up the market.

Moreover, the removal of producer or export subsidies in the west hurts countries that consume large quantities of the subsidised exports. Removing developing countries' own trade barriers may indeed help their exports. But the estimates of large income gains come from trade models that audaciously omit some significant costs and exaggerate the net gains. One such cost is the loss of tariff revenue, which often amounts to 10-20 per cent of government revenue. The revenue has to be made up by alternative taxes (such as sales or income tax), which have their own "distortionary" impact. Another cost omitted by the trade models is the handicap that lack of protection imposes on an infant industry sector. If the theory of comparative advantage worked, people and capital "released" from existing businesses would be re-employed in other, more "efficient" activities. But the theory assumes full employment, and therefore no significant transition costs. It simply assumes the problem away.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 11th, 2005 at 07:18:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have to cut this short and so can only hit some high points.

First, to make it REAL obvious:  I accept the statement "Free Trade is not a panacea."

Speaking directly to Colman's post:

Not having access to the model I am unable to critique directly.  In general, one may say, if the economic model is static, Simple - as opposed to Complex, uses non-iterative variable value assignment, or disallows schema adjustment of the modeled economic actors (agents) the analysis is - to be kind - not very reliable.

Published reports are indicating the World Bank has started to turn away from, what may be deemed, the 'Simplisitic Top-Down' approach.  This may indicate the model does not suffer from the above flaws.  Again, without the model, it is impossible to determine.  

The sentence, "The ending of the multi-fibre agreement early this year, for example, has hurt textile exporters across the developing world as super-efficient producers in China gobble up the market." is a superb example of:

X now follows Y
Therefore, X will always follow Y

a fallacy in Applied Temporal Logic.  This fallacy could have been committed in the World Bank report or by the journalist.  Shrug

Also, "hurt" WHO?  "hurt" HOW?  and by what measure - GDP?  Caloric intake per person?  Dollar/Euro per Thug?  Access to cash (internal/external) market?  International Corporations scooping-up raw resources on the cheap?  (if so then ... ha, ha, ha pfffft.)

 

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Sat Aug 13th, 2005 at 03:19:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]