US Air Force: Feb1997

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

February 1997 • U.S. Department of State Dispatch

1

Secretary Albright

Building a Framework for AmericanLeadership in the 21st Century

February 11, 1997

Statement before the House International Relations Committee, Washington, DC.

Mr. Chairman and members of the commit-tee: It is an honor and a pleasure to testify before you for the first time as Secretary ofState. As Ambassador to the UN, I benefitedgreatly from our constructive dialogue over thepast four years. I look forward now to continu-ing our relationship with the same candor andcommitment—and to working with you on aneven broader array of challenges facing ournation and the world.Mr. Chairman, more than seven years havepassed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and fiveyears since the demise of the Soviet Union.Today, America is secure, our economy vibrant,and our ideals ascendant. Across the globe, themovement toward open societies and openmarkets is wider and deeper than ever before.Democracy’s triumph is neither accidental norirreversible; it is the result of sustained Ameri-can leadership. It would not have been possiblewithout the power of our example, the strengthof our military, or the constancy and creativityof our diplomacy. That is the central lesson ofthe 20th century, and this lesson must continueto guide us if we are to safeguard our interestsas we enter the 21st.Make no mistake: The interests served byAmerican foreign policy are not the abstractinventions of State Department planners; theyare the concrete realities of our daily lives.Think about it. Would the American people be as secure if weapons of mass destruction,instead of being controlled, fell into the wronghands? That is precisely what would havehappened if the Administration and Congresshad not acted to ensure the dismantling ofIraq’s nuclear weapons program, the freezing ofNorth Korea’s, and the securing of Russia’s.Would we be as safe if small conflicts,instead of being contained early, spread acrossentire regions? That is what would havehappened had we not devised a formula forending the war in Bosnia and had we notpersisted in our search for a comprehensiveMiddle East peace.Or would we be as prosperous if the globaleconomy, instead of becoming more open toour trade and investment, had caved in andclosed up behind protectionist walls? That iswhat would have happened had we not pushedhard to achieve NAFTA and the GATT Uru-guay Round agreements—and to expand tradethrough our hemisphere and across the Pacific.The great divide in the world today is not between East and West or North and South; it is between those who are the prisoners of historyand those determined to shape history. That isnot only a statement of fact; it is a stark choicefor us to make. Mr. Chairman, that is the samechoice America faced 50 years ago in theaftermath of World War II. It was not self-evident then that we would make the rightchoice. We were tired of war, and we were justa few years removed from the Great Depres-sion. But fortunately for our generation,President Truman, Secretary Marshall, andSenator Vandenberg and other leading Mem- bers of Congress from both parties weredetermined that America should lead ratherthan withdraw. In a bipartisan manner andtogether with our allies, they forged a set ofinstitutions that have for a half-century success-fully defended freedom, rebuilt economies,upheld law, and prevented war.Since the end of the Cold War, we havechosen a similar course. We have begun to build a new framework of American leadershipappropriate to the challenges of a new century.In so doing, we are required to address not asingle overriding threat such as Soviet commu-nism but rather a variety of perils—some as oldas ethnic strife, some as deadly as terrorist bombs, some as pervasive as illegal drugs, andsome as new as global warming.To respond effectively to diverse threats,we require a full range of foreign policy tools.That is why we need to retain a military that isversatile, mobile, ready, and strong—and asPresident Clinton has pledged, we will. Butforce, being a blunt instrument and one with

2

U.S. Department of State Dispatch • February 1997

sometimes extreme consequences, cannot solveall our problems. There will be many occasions,in many places, where we will rely on diplo-macy to protect our interests, and we willexpect our diplomats to defend those interestswith skill, knowledge, and spine.Mr. Chairman, while our military is theultimate guarantor of our freedom, our diplo-mats are our first line of defense. One of mymost important tasks as Secretary of State will be to work with you and your colleagues inCongress to maintain the superb diplomaticrepresentation that our people deserve and ourinterests demand. As I said in my confirmationhearing, we cannot have world-class diplomacyon the cheap. We must invest the resourcesrequired for American leader-ship.In recent years, these re-sources have dwindled. Duringthe last four years, the StateDepartment has cut more than2,000 employees, closed morethan 30 embassies and consu-lates, and deferred the badlyneeded modernization ofinfrastructure and communica-tions. We have deeply reducedour foreign assistance pro-grams, and we now contribute asmaller percentage of ournational income to growth anddemocracy in the developingworld than any other industrial-ized nation. We are the largestdebtor to the United Nationsand the international financialinstitutions.Our spending on interna-tional affairs constitutes barely 1% of thefederal budget. If this small amount were to becut further, it is our influence in the world, notthe deficit, that would decline. In his State ofthe Union address last week, President Clintonsaid, “If America is to continue to lead theworld, we here who lead America simply mustfind the will to pay our way.”The FY 1998 budget that the President hassubmitted to Congress seeks to restore ourdiplomatic readiness, including a modestincrease in the funding of State Departmentoperations. In my view, the entire $19.45 billionrequested for international affairs is required tosustain American leadership. I ask yoursupport for this budget. In so doing, I pledgemy own best efforts, and I am determined towork closely with you to guarantee that theAmerican people receive full value for everydollar spent on our diplomacy.Mr. Chairman, I want to review with youtoday our developing framework for continuedAmerican leadership in the world and tohighlight parts of our budget that will supportit. This framework includes measures to controlweapons of mass destruction, to prevent orsettle dangerous regional conflicts, to maintainthe United States as the hub of an expandingglobal economy, and to promote fundamentalprinciples of democracy and respect for the ruleof law. But we will not achieve these goalsunless we are also able to reinforce our alli-ances and manage well our key bilateralrelationships.

Leadership With Key Partners

Our relations with the world’s majorpowers help bind together not only Americandiplomacy but the entire international system.By acting together, the leading nations are ableto elevate overall standards of international behavior, spur economic and social progress,and strengthen the rule of law.On Saturday, I will begin a visit to anumber of key capitals in Europe and Asia. Mypurpose will be to establish or renew mypersonal acquaintance with leaders there and todiscuss the range of pressing issues before us.My goal is not to reach new agreements but toexchange views and to lay a strong foundationfor enhanced cooperation, especially in the year just ahead.If the fundamental lesson of this centuryis, indeed, that America must lead, one of itsmajor corollaries is that we must remain aEuropean power. We have an interest inEurope’s security, because since the founding ofour Republic we have known that the AtlanticOcean is not an impregnable barrier for ourdefense. We have an interest in Europe’sprosperity, because our own prosperity hasalways depended greatly on our transatlantictrade and investment. And we have an interestin Europe’s freedom, because it was thetriumph of democracy there that ended theCold War.Today, American leadership in Europe ison solid ground. America led the way inrevitalizing NATO, ending the carnage inBosnia, mobilizing support for Russian democ-racy, and upholding the independence ofEurope’s new democratic nations. Now we areon the verge of realizing one of the most elusivedreams of this century—an integrated, stable,and democratic Europe. To fully reach our goal,we have three challenges to meet:•We must create a new and larger NATO,while promoting the integration of all of thecontinent’s new democracies;

“Our spendingon internationalaffairs constitutesbarely 1% of the federal budget.If this small amountwere to be cut further, it is ourinfluence in the world,not the deficit, thatwould decline.”

February 1997 • U.S. Department of State Dispatch

3

•We must build close and constructivepartnerships with Russia and Ukraine; and•We must promote democracy, maintainstability, and defuse tensions throughoutsoutheastern Europe—and particularly in theformer Yugoslavia.In 1994, President Clinton proposed andour allies embraced a program to adapt NATOto meet new challenges. These efforts will reacha new milestone at this July’s NATO summit inMadrid. At the summit, the alliance will inviteseveral nations to begin negotiations to joinNATO and will approve important changes inNATO’s internal structure. The negotiationsleading to the NATO summit will be among themost ambitious and complex in the history ofthe alliance. In the coming months, Mr. Chair-man, Administration officials will be makingthe case to the Congress and the Americanpeople why the new, larger NATO will advanceour vital interests.At its core, that case is this: Fifty years ago,the birth of NATO united new democracies,vanquished old hatreds, boosted economicreconstruction, and prevented future conflicts.What NATO did then for Europe’s west, it cando now for Europe’s east—the region wherethis century’s two global hot wars and the ColdWar began. The process of enlargement hasalready encouraged the settlement of historicdisputes between Hungary and Romania,Germany and the Czech Republic, and Polandand Ukraine. In the future, it can increase ourconfidence that there will be no more Bosnias,that the democratic revolutions of 1989 willendure, and that the Cold War-style divisionof Europe will not reopen in some new anddangerous form.That is what we are trying to achieve. Justas important is what we are trying to avoid. Forthere are only two real alternatives to enlarge-ment. We could replace the alliance with alowest-common-denominator NATO thatincludes everyone and imposes obligations onno one. That would devalue and degradeNATO. Or we could delay enlargement indefi-nitely, freezing NATO’s membership along itsCold War frontier. That would create not only apermanent injustice but also a permanentsource of tension and insecurity in the heart ofEurope.Of course, as we move forward, we mustmake sure no new lines are drawn acrossEurope. That is why we are strengtheningNATO’s Partnership for Peace and why ourfinancial support for the Partnership is vital. Itis why we support the expansion of the EU andthe courageous work the OSCE has done fromChechnya to Bosnia. It is also why fundingunder the SEED Act remains critical. Ourassistance has helped nations from Estonia tothe Czech Republic establish thriving democra-cies and thereby graduate from our program.But aid is still desperately needed in strugglingdemocracies like Bulgaria and Romania.One of the President’s top budget prioritiesis the Partnership for Freedom initiative, whichwill open a new phase in our assistance toRussia and the other New Independent States.The first phase was devoted to establishing the basic institutions of democracy and a marketeconomy. On the whole, this assistance has been enormously successful—especially inpromoting private ownership, free elections,and civil society. Our efforts will nowfocus on boosting trade and invest-ment, thereby unleashing the poten-tial for long-term growth that is cen-tral to the transformation of these so-cieties.Mr. Chairman, Russia and manyof its neighbors are making choicestoday that will have monumental con-sequences for our security and thecause of human freedom. At stake isthis: Will they emerge as normal de-mocracies with growing marketeconomies that are fully part of theEuropean mainstream? Or will they become poor and isolated nations,plagued by instability, corruption,and crime? These are not choices wecan make. But we can choose to helpthose in each society who are deter-mined to make the right choice.Certainly, our interests are clear:A strong and permanent democraticprocess in Russia and the other New IndependentStates will enhance our security, aid in the fightagainst proliferation, help combat internationalcrime, provide new economic opportunities,and create a climate of lasting stability in aregion as vital to our future as it has beencentral to our past.We understand that Russia opposes theenlargement of NATO, and we do not expectthat to change. We must address Russia’slegitimate concerns, but it is not in our interestto delay or derail a process that is helping to build a reunited Europe. In any case, thedecisions NATO makes in Brussels and in ourallied capitals are not going to determine thefate of Russia’s democracy. That will depend onthe ability of Russia’s leaders to meet the realneeds of their people and to speed Russia’seconomic recovery and revival.What NATO can do and what it wants todo is to make Russia our full partner in build-ing a united and peaceful Europe. NATO hasproposed a formal charter to Russia that will

“What NATO didthen [50 yearsago] for Europe’swest, it can donow for Europe’seast—the regionwhere thiscentury’s two global hot warsand the Cold Warbegan.”

of 00

Leave a Comment