Karl Heinz Beckurts Memorial Lecture (March 25, 2010)

The Bridge: America, Germany and Europe
Karl Heinz Beckurts Memorial Lecture
Hannover, March 25, 2010
Ambassador Philip D. Murphy

Verehrter Herr Vorsitzender des Vorstandes der DZ Bank AG, Wolfgang Kirsch.
sehr geehrte, liebe Frau Beckurts,
meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren,

lieber Walther,  liebe Beate, wir sind seit vielen Jahren befreundet.  Erlauben Sie mir dennoch, Ihnen und allen anderen, die so engagiert für die Atlantik-Brücke arbeiten, im Namen der US-Botschaft und unserer Konsulate offiziell für Ihren Einsatz für die transatlantische Partnerschaft zu danken. Die Brücke zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten und Europa ist ein Grundpfeiler der amerikanischen Außenpolitik. Sie alle sind echte Brückenbauer.

Karl-Heinz Beckurts war ein Brückenbauer. Das zeigte sich in seinem Engagement für die Atlantik-Brücke, zu deren Vorstand er gehörte, ebenso wie in seiner Arbeit als Wissenschaftler. Es ist mir eine Ehre, anlässlich des jährlichen Gedenkens an sein Leben und seine Arbeit zu Ihnen zu sprechen.

[Walther, Beate, we have been friends for years but allow me now in the most official terms on behalf of the U.S. Embassy and our Consulates to thank you and all those who work so hard for the Atlantik-Brűcke for your commitment to the transatlantic partnership.  The bridge between America and Europe is an essential structural element of America’s foreign policy.  You are all truly bridge-builders. 

Karl Heinz Beckurts was a bridge-builder. He showed it in both his commitment to the Atlantik-Brücke, of which he was a board member, and in his calling as a scientist.  I am honored to address you today at this annual commemoration of his life and career.] 

In addition to the Atlantik-Brücke’s annual lecture, every year the Karl Heinz Beckurts Foundation honors individuals who have transitioned scientific research to the development of new commercial ideas.  Continuous and ongoing cooperation between science and industry is one of the driving forces behind the economies of both Germany and the United States.  Many of the challenges we face today – climate change, energy security, food safety, data protection, health and the spread of epidemics – are dependent on those relationships.  Karl Heinz Beckurts was targeted by terrorists for his role as a bridge-builder between the worlds of science and business and government.  Today, we honor him. 

In 1995, the Atlantik-Brűcke invited me to deliver the Karl Heinz Beckurts lecture.  I am honored that you have asked me back. Today I speak to you not from the perspective of the private sector but as Ambassador of the United States.  Let me emphasize what an enormous personal honor it was for me when President Barack Obama asked me to represent my country here in Germany.  I have a very strong personal connection to this country and to its people and it is a great to be back.

Fifteen years ago, my topic was worldwide capital requirements and global markets.  Germany had become the world’s laboratory for the West as they struggled to fund the past and future of the East.  The euphoria was beginning to fade and I posed the question whether we could afford the future.   If there was a gap between the supply of and demand for capital – at global, regional and national levels – whose fault was it?   Was it the “opportunistic, speculative” providers of capital or the “opportunistic, short-sighted” recipients of capital that had sacrificed investment and savings for internationally-funded consumption?  I argued then – and I will argue again today – that economies, like companies and individuals, dare not allow themselves to be swayed by the market of the day or the investment trend of the year.  In 1995, I described a chaotic global market condition.  In addition to the slow transition of economies in Eastern Europe to investment grade credit, we witnessed a financial crisis in Mexico, a Japan in recession, the Arab states in recovery from a war and balancing their oil-based economies.  Well, it is a good thing that I never claimed to be either an historian or an economist.   If I described 1995 as a chaotic market situation, what was 2009? 

The issues that the world faces today are of a complexity that we could not have imagined in 1995.  Although, I admit that I am an optimist by nature and we are having a very good week, it is very easy to be pessimistic these days.  There is a lot that is not going right these days – in the United States, in Germany, in Europe, and around the world.  The list of issues is long.  You know them as well as I do.  Climate change and the need to build on the agreement reached in Copenhagen.  The Greek crisis and the challenges facing the European Monetary Union.  Financial market reform, both domestic and international – so desperately needed but nevertheless elusive.  Finding the right balance between export economy strength and domestic consumption and savings.  In the United States, the issue of home values and mortgages continues to cause great and widespread personal pain.  In both of our countries, we need to face the issue of budget deficits and indebtedness.  Unemployment is too high.  We need to create jobs, not lose them.  There are domestic policy challenges revolving around social welfare.  In the United States, after decades, health care reform has been achieved in a fractured political environment.  Here in Germany, Hartz IV provisions are hotly debated.  There are demographic issues.  Our societies are aging.  We are experiencing increasing diversity.  Integration is essential.   Our two countries both face domestic political challenges.  Bipartisanship is not easy in the United States.   In Germany, the electoral system makes it very difficult for any one party to end up with an absolute majority.  Coalition governments – and negotiations – are the rule.  Germany is a member of the European Union.  The grand idea is not yet a perfectly functioning unit as it transitions to a new governing reality.

All this, and I haven’t talked about geopolitical challenges – in Afghanistan, in Iran, in the Middle East.  Terrorism continues to threaten our citizens and our societies.  These are just some of the challenges we face.  For any and all of them, there are immediate, short-term actions that need to be taken but those actions must not dictate or dominate the vital, long-term agenda.  Countries and economies, like companies or individuals, must stick to a handful of core objectives and initiatives and not be swayed by the market of the day or the investment trend of the hour. There are many examples in our times that show that it would have been wrong to define the future based on a trend of the moment.  Think of Berlin in winter in the late 1940s, the oil malaise in the 1970s, or Japanese ascension in the 1980s.  I remember my mother moaning, “They are buying us out!” – and expecting me as a young banker on Wall Street to do something about it.  I also remember very vividly my first days on Wall Street in the summer of 1982 when the values of the stock market was less than ten percent of its value today.  Think back to the peace dividend we paid ourselves after the Berlin Wall came down.   Think of the dot.com bubble a decade later.  In one’s personal affairs, in business, and also in the realm of foreign policy, there are peaks and there are valleys.  One of the lessons I have learned in life is that it is wrong to extrapolate from either of those extremes.  Mark Twain wrote that “a cat who sits on a hot stove will never sit on a hot stove again. But he won’t sit on a cold stove, either.”  They say cats are smart, but they are not very good at distinguishing between cause and effect. 

The wiser course is to focus intently on long-term initiatives that will preemptively define a better future as opposed to accepting and fitting ourselves into current trends.  In approaching our foreign policy priorities Secretary Clinton says that we have to deal with “the urgent, the important, and the long-term all at once.”  I would plead in all cases never to forget and always to consider the long-term element.

I see five critical initiatives, five investments in our future that demand positive, persistent, forward looking approaches, with calculated risk and a scrupulous examination of long-term cause and effect.  These are not the only five, by any means, but they are each of long-term critical consequence.

The first is actually a trio of countries with which we must aggressively seek and find common ground in order to create new 21st century alliances and partnerships.  The approach for each of these countries will be different but the interests are the same.
 
Russia

I will start with Russia.   Russia is no longer an adversary but a partner on key global issues.  The Obama Administration inherited a deteriorating relationship with Russia.  We pressed the re-set button and the relationship has benefitted.   We have made progress on many matters, including helping to address Iran’s nuclear program through the E3+3, confronting North Korea’s defiance of its international obligations, negotiating a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, tackling non-traditional threats such as pandemic disease, cyber warfare, and human trafficking.   We are building upon this foundation as we seek to revitalize the NATO-Russia Council, so it can make concrete contributions to areas where we are working together and need to be doing even more, such as in missile defense, counternarcotics, and Afghanistan.   For the reset to be successful over the long run, we will need to acknowledge both our similarities and our differences -- and seriously and thoughtfully seek common ground.  Woody Allen once claims that he “took a speed-reading course and read ‘War and Peace’ in twenty minutes. What did he learn?  It involved Russia.”  We will have to do better than that.

For years, Russia has expressed a sense of insecurity as NATO and the EU have expanded.  We believe that the enlargement of both of these organizations has increased security, stability, and prosperity across the continent.  That applies to Russia as well.  Russia’s western boundaries have never been safer.  We won’t always agree.  For example, the United States objects to any spheres of influence in Europe in which one country seeks to control another’s future but within a relatively short period of time there has been a significant change, one with long term consequences and certainly not without its challenges.

Russia also faces challenges at home.  The Russian economy – until recently, one of the fastest growing economies in the world -- was hit hard by the global financial crisis.  Energy is the country’s major industry but without significant diversification and modernization, Russia will not be able to achieve sustainable economic growth. 

More serious, however, is the demographic crisis that Russia faces.   Europe and the United States also face similar demographic challenges but to a much lesser degree.  Negative or declining population growth is an impediment to productivity and overall growth.  Low birth rates in Western Europe may constitute a challenge, but few would describe the situation as a “crisis.” What distinguishes Russia’s demography from the rest of Europe’s is not its fertility trends, but rather its patterns of mortality and survival. In Russia today, life expectancy is twelve years shorter than in Western Europe.  Its per capita output is a third of Western European levels. Russia has little chance of narrowing that income gap unless it also closes the health gap that separates Russians from the rest of Europe.  A country’s health profile is an essential element of its economic potential.  These problems act as an economic straitjacket.  How can this urbanized and well-educated nation hope to become a vibrant modern economy with a dwindling and debilitated workforce? 

The United States has always maintained that we need strong global partners in Europe as keystones to a stable, prosperous, democratic, and peaceful world.   A strong Russia is an important part of that equation. 

Turkey

The second country is Turkey.  The alliance between the United States and Turkey is founded on a firm base of long-standing shared interests.  More important, however, U.S.-Turkish cooperation can be a force for immense progress in many of the pressing challenges in the world today – and I would make the same case for German-Turkish or European-Turkish relations. 

Turkey interacts intensively with all of the countries in its immediate neighborhood and beyond.  Its geostrategic role influences the stability of the Middle East and the broader Islamic world, the security of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the development of the Caucasus and Black Sea region, and global cooperation on counter-terrorism. 

Economically, Turkey has one of the highest rates of growth in the world and has become one of the top twenty global economies.   Turkey plays a crucial role as a transit hub for energy to Europe.   Its second largest export market -- after Germany -- is Iraq.  That has had a stabilizing influence on their relationship as neighbors and is an example of the   “zero problems” policy it strives for with its immediate neighbors.  Turkey’s “zero problems” is a constructive sign of engagement in terms of building a more peaceful and prosperous neighborhood, but pursued uncritically or at any price, it can also be an example of a short term reaction taken at the expense of a broader, longer-term goal.   For example, we know that Turkey shares our concerns about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran but at times it has sounded a different note than the international community.  We would like to see Turkey join us in making clear to Iran that there are consequences for lack of cooperation on their nuclear program.

Within Turkey, there are ongoing debates about civil-military relations, the role of religion, freedom of the press and the rule of law -- debates that underline how crucial it is that Turkey sustain and develop its hard-won successes in building a secular state and strong democratic system.   Some ask where Turkey is heading and, in fact, whether Turkey is turning away from the West.  Turkey has, as Phil Gordon, our Assistant Secretary of State for European & Eurasian Affairs and my boss, recently pointed out, always had multiple identities. For decades, it has maintained strong relations with both its neighbors to the West and its neighbors to the East.  That need not change. That dare not change.  Indeed, that is part of Turkey’s strength.

It does not alter the fact that  on nearly every single vital issue we face, the United States benefits from having Turkey as an engaged, supportive, long-term partner – and vice versa. But, and this is crucial, Turkey needs to demonstrate that it wants and needs that partnership, too.  This must be a balanced relationship.  

For that reason – and, of course, I recognize that the decision is not ours to make – the United States supports Turkish accession to the European Union.  We remain convinced that a Turkey that meets EU membership criteria would be good for the EU -- and good for Turkey.  Years down the road, let it not be said as we look at the arc of history that we took a false turn – and allowed Turkey to turn away from the West.  The vision of a democratic Turkey, with a vibrant economy, integrated into Europe, is critical to all of our futures. 

China

China is the third country in my trio.  Tammy and I lived in Hong Kong at the time that it reverted back to China.  You may have heard the Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times!”  It was our experience that any time was interesting in China. And it was not a curse.   Certainly this is an important time for both the United States and Europe to engage with China.

In fact, much was made of President Obama’s observation at the opening of the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue last summer that, "the relationship between the United States and China will shape the 21st century."  Some interpreted that to mean that the transatlantic relationship between the United States and Europe was no longer important to the United States.  On the contrary.  Power in the 21st century is no longer a zero-sum game.  The degree to which the United States – and Europe – can enlist Beijing's help on pressing global issues like economic recovery, nuclear proliferation and climate change and clean energy will shape the successes and failures of our common agenda.   Projections of U.S. leadership being overshadowed by China are also fashionable these days but they often emphasize the strengths of China while soft-pedaling the strengths of the United States.  Remember also that ups and downs are often part of the turbulence of natural cycles.  Think back thirty years to 1979 when the United States and China established diplomatic relations.  At home, the United States faced stagflation, high unemployment and declining standards of living.  Confidence in the American economic model had been undermined.  But then an interesting thing happened.  The United States bounced back stronger than ever.  Thanks to innovation, new technologies laid the foundation for 30 years of economic growth in the United States.  I might add that kind of innovation will also determine the global economic leaders of the future. 

Thirty years ago, China also faced challenges.  It had just emerged from a decade of social, economic and political upheaval with a new reform policy. One of the main tenets of that policy was opening up to the rest of the world.  In the past three decades, China’s GDP has increased 82-fold, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the process, an accomplishment unparalleled in human history.  Much of this growth has been driven by exports.  Thirty years ago, China’s share of global trade was less than 0.1%.   Today, it is more than 10%.  This trade has created millions of jobs and fueled economic growth.  Nobody can predict what the next three decades will bring. 

In 1979, political cooperation between the United States and China was rooted largely in a shared rivalry with the Soviet Union.  In three decades, however, enormous progress has been made.  This is not to downplay our differences.  The United States and Europe, for example, share an historical worldview and experience that is much different than the 5,000-year history of China that has been shaped by Confucian values and marked by revolution and reform.  These differences don’t mean that our cultures are destined to clash.  It does mean, however, that we must work harder to understand each other. 
 
We have and probably will continue to have disagreements on particular issues. That includes a discussion of human rights and freedom of speech.  The United States has supported and contributed to China’s rise as a global player.  We want to see a strong, prosperous and stable China, and we believe this is only possible when people are confident enough to speak truth to power, both here and abroad. Together we can lay the foundation for another 30 years of economic growth and stability. 

Transatlantic Relationship

As we invest political and economic capital in Russia, Turkey and China, it is also imperative that we continue to develop the potential of the transatlantic relationship that is so rich in overlapping histories and common goals.  It would be a mistake, however, to cast our alliance as history from a bygone era.  The transatlantic relationship represents a commitment and a promise that remains fundamental to our security and our prosperity. So again to reference Mark Twain, reports of the demise of the transatlantic partnership have been greatly exaggerated. 

Symbolic of the promise of the transatlantic relationship is the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. It is emblematic of both the European Union narrative and the narrative of our shared transatlantic history.  The EU plays a strong role on the global stage, much stronger than in years gone by.  That transition matches the changes that have taken place in our world.  Like the United States and the rest of the world, Europe must have the capability to respond to the dangers of failed states; the threat to our internal security from extremists who come from outside our borders; the threat of nuclear proliferation, especially from non-state actors; the problems of organized crime, based on trafficking goods, and people; the dangers of climate change; and the need for foreign demand to stimulate internal economic growth. 

Over the last two years, we have gone through the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression and a global recession from which we are only now just beginning to emerge.   If it was not clear before, it must be clear now to all just how important the economic aspects of our relationship are.  There is no commercial artery in the world as large as the one binding the United States and Europe together.  The United States is the world’s largest economy; the European Union is the world’s largest economic block. There is no relationship that creates more jobs, produces higher incomes, and generates greater wealth for both parties.  We need to rebuild confidence in our markets so that capital can flow again to help spur growth in our both our markets and markets around the world.  To do that, we must put in place sensible, balanced regulation in order to prevent the kind of crisis that unfolded two years ago.  Bold thinking and action are required.  Economic recessions can be invitations for positive change, with a firm eye on long-term goals. 

The Transatlantic Economic Council or TEC is an example of a new organization that was created to look beyond ad hoc solutions to trade and investment problems.  It was an aspect of the transatlantic partnership that Chancellor Merkel specifically focused on during Germany's EU presidency in 2007 and it is symbolic of the importance that she attaches to the economic aspects of our economic partnership.  The goal of the TEC is to build on the relationship between the U.S. and the European Union to find ways to further integrate our economies and to deal with over-arching new issues on the agenda as they come up.  The TEC concept is not there, to solve specific trade disputes.  For example, more important than the dispute about chicken that came close to a trade war last year is a discussion and agreement about how to regulate food safety in the United States and Europe – and beyond.   The TEC is one more embellishment of the long held dream of a true transatlantic block.

NATO

In the same way that we are taking a critical but constructive look at the economic underpinnings of our relationship, we must also take a good, hard look at our security. 

As the U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder rightfully says, NATO is the global gold standard for providing security and defense within democratic societies.  But he is also the first to admit that while NATO is the best in the business at keeping the core Euro-Atlantic area safe, we need to work on tackling new security challenges in flexible, creative ways.   That does not take away from the relevancy of NATO.  Article 5, the central clause of NATO’s founding document ratified over 60 years ago in Washington, safeguards each member with the pledge that “an armed attack against one or more … shall be considered an attack against …all.”  It remains the bedrock of the alliance. 

The ongoing work on a new strategic concept to answer the question of how to maintain that core commitment to collective defense in an era of global threats is an unparalleled opportunity to adapt the Alliance to the security landscape we live in today and the landscape of the future -- and to present it to the world at large in an easy-to-understand format.  Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is chairing the group of experts that is working with NATO Secretary General Rasmussen to draft this document.  Secretary Albright played an instrumental role in helping the Alliance to re-define its course after the end of the Cold War both in the Balkans and through enlargement.  It is that brand of vision that is needed again today. 
Afghanistan is a case study that demonstrates the need for a more flexible NATO and an integrated strategy that combines an emphasis on security, governance and the rule of law, and economic development.  In January, I had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan as a guest of the Bundeswehr and the German Ministry of Defense.   I spoke with dozens of people; soldiers, civilian aid workers, diplomats, and police, from Germany, the United States, other Allies, and Afghanistan who were convinced that the strategy of protecting the population and accelerating the training of the Afghan national security forces has real potential to catalyze success throughout Afghanistan.  Implementing this strategy will, however, require greater presence through training, mentoring and partnering.  As we make the necessary long term decisions about the extent of our investment in the NATO of the future, we need to answer one fundamental question, “what is NATO for”?   That was made crystal clear to me when I visited Afghanistan earlier this year.

What is important about Afghanistan as a case study is the importance of Afghanistan in a regional context.  It’s not just about the country itself, but about the neighborhood where it resides.

Middle East

That neighborhood is Central Asia and the Middle East – the area of the world where we face some of our most crucial challenges.  More specifically, the pursuit of peace between Arabs and Israelis is one of the most important challenges to international security –almost as important to the national interests of countries around the world as it is for the parties themselves.  The Arab-Israeli issue has been a source of tension and passion for people of all faiths within this region and around the world for decades.  It infects the range of global challenges that confront us:  issues such as the threat of violent extremism and terrorism, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the situation in Iran, and the transition of Iraqi responsibility to Iraq, to name a few. 

The environment for peacemaking in the Middle East has almost never has been ideal, and it is not ideal today.  The Palestinians are divided geographically and politically. Hamas governs Gaza.  Palestinian public discourse about Israel and Jews is still infused with anti-Semitism.  The infrastructure of terrorism has not been dismantled.   In Israel, settlement activity continues, despite the moratorium on new housing starts.  Some Israeli actions in East Jerusalem are provoking Palestinian protests that threaten to upset a relatively calm situation.  Nevertheless, public opinion polls in Israel and Palestine still favor a peaceful solution.  According to the War and Peace Index, compiled at Tel Aviv University, as of last October, three-fourths of the Israeli Jewish public supported negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians – the highest level of support registered in recent years.  And, according to a Palestinian poll, almost 70% of Palestinians support a two-state solution.

The fact is, however, that in both countries a 17 year old peace process has eroded confidence in negotiations and created political fragmentation.  Moderate Arab regimes on which we rely can no longer expect compliance from their counterparts.  Setbacks in Iraq, the rise of Iran, the failure of diplomacy in the 1990s, and a perceived disengagement from diplomacy in the decade that followed have detracted from American credibility and influence.  Many in the region wonder what the U.S. stands for and seeks to achieve.  Perhaps even worse, some have begun not to care.  

We are disappointed that more progress has not been made but we will continue to stay at it and not give up simply because it is a long slog.  In his meetings last week in Berlin, Senator Mitchell, the President’s Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, underlined the necessity to keep everybody at the table.  Both sides say they are in favor of full negotiations.  Both sides need follow through with the actions that agreement requires. That is their responsibility. The challenge of leadership is not to await the perfect circumstances, but to build on the imperfect. Opportunities rarely present themselves; they almost always have to be created.  And waiting serves no good purpose; if this problem is challenging today – and it is – it will only be more so tomorrow.   Our goal remains the same: to re-launch negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians on a path that will lead to a two-state solution.  It is in the best interests of both the region and the world to pursue this solution.  It is what we intend to do – and what we must do.

Demographics

I have mentioned five areas of the world where I believe it is in the best interests of the United States, as well as Germany and Europe, to focus on.  A trinity of countries with whom we are in the process of re-defining our relationship for the 21st century – Russia, Turkey and China; our two bedrock transatlantic relationships anchored in two institutions that were created to address post-World War II Cold War concerns – the EU and NATO; and finally, the regional challenge in the Middle East that influences deeply and emotionally so many global issues.   On both sides of the Atlantic, however, our citizens may wonder what China or Afghanistan or Iran has to do with their lives.  Unfortunately, in today’s world, problems on the other side of the world can very quickly translate into local threats.   That does not, however, take away from the very real personal challenges that our citizens are facing at home, at school and in their workplaces. 

In his remarks at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, President Obama remarked, and I quote, “that as the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.”  It is in support of that hypothesis that we believe that societies that prosper are those in which economic growth takes place; in societies where democracy and democratic values are fostered and tolerance is promoted; in societies where the reach of opportunity is expanded, where we help the poor, and create the conditions for improvements in the environment.

It is in our national interest to strive for these conditions around the world, but we must start at home.  As recent debates in the United States have highlighted, Americans have a number of concerns.  In a recent poll, 92% of those surveyed gave the national economy a negative rating; 85% said that jobs are hard to find in their community.  A little over 50% said that someone in their household has been without a job or looking for work in the past year.  The statistics are probably similar in Germany.  Jobs are an issue in both of our countries and one that government has to be attentive to.

Both Germany and the United States face demographic challenges.  Immigration and integration used to be an issue that was associated with the United States.  It still is.  But it has also become an important issue here in this country – and one that I have started to learn more about as I have met countless members of Germany’s Turkish and other immigrant communities.

Our societies are aging.  The baby boomers are moving into retirement. What impact will that have on our economies and our social structures? 

In both of our countries, however, and particularly in Germany, birth rates are sinking.  I believe it is essential that we create the opportunities for families and children to flourish; and for women to exploit all the advantages of society.  There are few issues that speak more directly to the long term success of a nation than issues concerning the education we provide to our children.   Last week the topic of President Obama’s weekly video address to the American people was that very subject.  He cited a report that rated the U.S. in education on an international scale.  The results were not all positive.  The German educational system is subject to similar challenges.   On both sides of the Atlantic, we are too often consumed with the politics of the moment: who’s up or down in the polls.  But what matters to everybody, is what we do to lift up the next generation.  That is one peak that we cannot afford to misread, one steadfast lesson that we must extrapolate for the future.

Conclusion

Schon vor 15 Jahren hielt ich hier einen Vortrag, damals über den Kapitalbedarf der Länder der Welt. Als Banker konnte ich mir die Frage erlauben, ob wir uns die Zukunft leisten können. Als Vertreter meines Präsidenten habe ich Sie ebenfalls auf eine Weltreise mitgenommen – in die Regionen der Welt, die wir in Zukunft auf keinen Fall vernachlässigen dürfen, in denen wir uns, mit einer klaren Ausrichtung auf unsere langfristigen Ziele, massiv engagieren müssen. Wir können und müssen die Zukunft gestalten.

[Fifteen years ago, in this forum I surveyed worldwide capital requirements. As a banker, I was permitted to ask the question of whether we could afford the future.  Today as a representative of my President, I have also taken you on a global tour, on a survey of the regions of the world that we cannot afford not to address in the future; where we must invest unlimited amounts of engagement and commitment with a clear, strong focus on our long-term goals.  We can and we must shape the future.] 

There are no sure bets.   We must challenge our circumstances and look beyond what appears to be fact.   For as the Chinese say, out of challenge emerges opportunity and from crisis is cleverness born. 

As a true and long-time friend of the Atlantik-Brűcke – and this is as much a threat as a promise – I would love to return fifteen years from now, in this or a less formal setting, to survey with you the peaks and valleys of a no longer quite so young 21st century.  My wish, my hope is that decisions made today will have brought us forward along the arc of the right side of history and that we will have found and implemented the right blend of idealism and pragmatism that balances both our values and our interests. 

Niemand weiß, aber, was die Zukunft bringen wird. Und so bemerkte schon Bertolt Brecht: "Weil die Dinge so sind, wie sie sind, werden sie nicht so bleiben, wie sie waren."

Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.

[None of us, of course, can know what the future will bring but as the playwright Brecht once observed, “Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are.”

Thank you for your attention.]