Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
February 16, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 11229 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MADELEINE ALBRIGHT SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - AMERICA AND THE WORLD IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
BODY:
I. PRIORITIES FOR THE NEW YEAR
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, good morning. I am pleased to
be here to testify regarding the President's proposed Fiscal Year 2001 budget
request for international affairs, and to review U.S. foreign policy around the
world.
In times past, my predecessors have appeared before this
Committee seeking support for Americans at war, help in responding to a grave
international crisis, or solidarity in the face of threats posed by a
totalitarian superpower.
But now, in this first year of the new
millennium, our country is at peace. We enjoy record prosperity. Our alliances
are united and firm. And the ideals that underlie our own democracy have spread
to every continent, so that for the first time in recorded history, more than
half the world's people live under elected governments. Some might see in this
good news reason to sit back, put our feet up, and relax, thinking that we are
safe now and there is no more great work to be done.
But experience
warns us that the course of world events is neither predictable nor smooth. And
given the pace of our era, we know that dangerous threats to our security and
prosperity could arise with 21st century speed.
These include the spread
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the missiles that can deliver them; the
plague of international terror; the danger of regional tensions erupting into
conflicts; the poisonous effects of drug trafficking and crime; the risk of
renewed financial crisis; and the global challenges posed by poverty, disease
and environmental degradation.
Three years ago, in my first appearance
before this Committee as Secretary, I testified that the framework for American
leadership must include measures to control the threats posed by nuclear weapons
and terror; to seize opportunities for settling regional conflicts; to maintain
America as the hub of an expanding global economy; and to defend cherished
principles of liberty and law.
I said further that our key alliances and
relationships were at the center of that framework. For these are the bonds that
hold together the entire international system. When we are able to act
cooperatively with other leading nations, we create a convergence of power and
purpose that can solve problems and spur progress around the globe.
This
framework will continue to guide us in the year 2000. Our priorities include an
even stronger NATO, with ever more robust partnerships, still open to new
members, developing new capabilities and preparing for new missions.
We
will also strive with our partners to build peace in Kosovo and integrate all of
Southeast Europe into the continent's democratic mainstream.
We will
work in consultation with this Committee, our allies, and others to respond
effectively to the perils of proliferation and the promise of arms control.
We will promote a healthy, open, and growing world economy whose
benefits are shared more widely both among and within nations, and where
American genius and productivity receive their due.
We will focus
attention on our complex relationships with Russia and China, adhering to core
principles, while seeking to advance common interests.
We will act
resolutely to support peace in key regions such as the Middle East, Central
Africa, Northern Ireland and the Aegean.
We will continue our efforts to
enhance stability on the Korean Peninsula and to ease tensions in South Asia.
We will strive for even greater cooperation along our borders with
Canada and Mexico.
And we will work to strengthen democratic
institutions worldwide, including the four key countries of Colombia, Indonesia,
Nigeria and Ukraine.
These and other tasks may seem disparate, but each
relates to our vision of a secure and prosperous America within an increasingly
peaceful and democratic world.
Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether
we will have the resources we need to provide the kind of leadership our
citizens deserve and our interests demand.
Despite President Clinton's
strong backing and bipartisan support from many in Congress, our foreign policy
enters the 21st Century living hand to mouth.
Today, we allocate less
than one-tenth of the portion of our gross national product that we did half a
century ago to support democracy and growth overseas. During the past decade
alone, our investment relative to the size of our economy has declined by more
than half. Throughout this period, we have been cutting foreign policy
positions, closing diplomatic posts, and shutting AID and USIA missions. And we
still have far to go in partnership with Congress to provide fully adequate
security for our people overseas.
All this has consequences. It reduces
our influence for stability and peace in potentially explosive regions. It
detracts from our leadership on global economic issues. It makes it harder for
us to leverage the help of others. And it often leaves us with a no-win choice
between devoting resources to one emergency and using those same resources to
deal with another urgent need.
Last week, the President submitted his
Fiscal Year 2001 budget, including a request for about $22.8
billion for international affairs programs. I ask you to support that request in
its entirety. And I do so with the clear understanding that the vast majority of
the funds requested will be spent next year, under a new Administration. The
President's request has nothing to do with parties or personalities; it has
everything to do with our nation's ability to protect our interests and promote
our values.
And I remind you that today, we devote only one penny out of
every federal dollar we spend to our international affairs programs. But that
single penny can make the difference between a future characterized by peace,
rising prosperity and law, and a more uncertain future, in which our economy and
security are always at risk, our peace of mind is always under assault, and
American leadership is increasingly in doubt.
Mr. Chairman,
members of the Committee, it has been a great honor to work with you these past
three years, for they have been years of progress and accomplishment for
America.
Because this is an election year, some say it will be harder to
gain Executive-Legislative cooperation in international affairs. But you and I
both know that the world does not stand still even for American elections. We
have an obligation--which I am confident we will meet-- to work together
responsibly on behalf of American interests. And this morning, I would like to
review with you our agenda for leadership in the year ahead.
II.
AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AROUND THE WORLD
A) Europe and the New Independent
States
Since the end of the Cold War, President Clinton and his
counterparts in Europe have strived to adapt trans-Atlantic institutions to deal
with the realities of a transformed world. Where once we worked with part of
Europe to counter a threat that had imprisoned and made dangerous its eastern
half, now we work with all of Europe to secure peace, prosperity and freedom
throughout and beyond its borders.
As a result, we begin the 21st
Century with a NATO that has been strengthened by new members and prepared for
new missions. During the Washington Summit last April, Alliance leaders adopted
a revised Strategic Concept, vowed to develop the capabilities required to
respond to the full spectrum of threats NATO may face, took its partnerships
with Europe's other democracies to a new level, and pledged to strengthen the
European pillar of the Alliance in a way that bolsters overall effectiveness and
unity. The Allies also underscored their commitment to enlargement by adopting a
plan to help aspiring countries prepare for possible future membership.
We have also worked to strengthen the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). At the November summit in Istanbul, OSCE members
agreed on a new Charter for European Security, recognizing that security within
societies is as important as security between states.
Our partnership
with the European Union (EU) is another pillar of trans-Atlantic security and
prosperity. As the EU develops its foreign policy capabilities, we are prepared
to develop our partnership in tandem with it. That is why we used the U.S.-EU
Summits this past year to improve our ability to act together in fast-breaking
crises; manage our differences; and improve joint efforts to address global
challenges. We also strongly support the EU's plan for enlargement, including
its recognition of Turkey as a candidate for membership.
These measures
are part of a larger strategy for realizing one of the most elusive dreams of
this century, which is an undivided and fully democratic Europe. This goal is
also served by our support for the Good Friday peace accords in Northern
Ireland; our diplomatic backing for UN-based talks on Cyprus; our efforts with
regional leaders to consolidate freedom in central Europe; and our support for
Nordic and Baltic nations as they move down the road to integration and
cooperation.
Unfortunately, there remains a large piece missing in the
puzzle we have been trying to assemble of a Europe whole and free. And that is
the continent's southeast corner, where the exploitation of ethnic rivalries
sparked World War I, contributed to the mayhem of World War II, and led to four
conflicts this decade, including the recent crisis in Kosovo.
In
partnership with the EU and others, we have entered into the Southeast European
Stability Pact, a multiyear strategy for integrating the nations of that region
into the continent's democratic mainstream. The Pact's goals are to foster
peaceful, tolerant societies; build viable economies; and transform the region
from a source of instability into a full participant and partner in the new
Europe.
We are under no illusions about the difficulty of this task. It
is literally to transform the patterns of history; to replace whirlpools of
violence leading nowhere with a steady upward tide. This won't happen unless the
international community follows through on commitments to help. And unless
regional leaders make the hard choices required to create societies based on
freedom and law.
Accordingly, we welcome the European Commission's
intention to secure 11.2 billion Euros for these goals during the next six
years. And we are encouraged by the commitment governments are making to curb
corruption and create a good climate for doing business.
We are also
heartened by democratic progress in the former Yugoslavia. Since Dayton,
elections have been held at all levels in Bosnia. In Macedonia, there was a
peaceful transfer of power last year.
In Croatia, the just-concluded
election process has been a true breakthrough, representing a triumph for civil
society and a major turning point away from ultra-nationalism and towards
democratic values. In Montenegro, President Djukanovic is championing democracy.
And increasingly in Serbia, the people are asking when they will be
given the right to choose their leaders freely and without fear.
Finally, in Kosovo, our challenge is to prepare the way for democracy by
bringing the same determination to the task of building peace as we did to
ending conflict.
In less than eight months, much progress has been made.
Large-scale violence has ended. Almost a million refugees and displaced have
returned home. The Kosovo Liberation Army has effectively met its promise to
demilitarize. A civilian police is being established and an Interim
Administrative Council created.
Nevertheless, the situation remains
tense and unpredictable. Backed by Kosovo's leaders, we have urged citizens to
refrain from violence, and to cooperate with KFOR, the UN mission, and the
international war crimes tribunal. And we are working with them to prepare for
municipal elections later this year.
I urge your support for the
President's request for funds to help the Kosovars build a democratic society.
Combined with the far larger contributions received from our allies and
partners, these funds will be used to help create effective civil
administration, spur economic activity, create democratic institutions and train
and equip the police.
In Bosnia, we remain deeply committed to full
implementation of the Dayton Accords. In cooperation with our many partners, we
are constantly evaluating how best to enable and encourage Bosnians to take full
responsibility for building a stable, democratic society. The President's budget
requests the resources we will need to help Bosnians continue moving in the
right direction.
As we proceed with efforts to help Europe's new
democracies, we cannot neglect the health of democracy in older ones. In
Austria, we are concerned about statements made by Freedom Party head Joerg
Haider. Regardless of the government's composition, we have made it clear that
we expect Austria to continue to meet the commitments it has made to respect the
rights of minorities, foreigners and refugees.
Further to the east,
towards the Caucasus and Central Asia, democratic change remains very much a
work in progress. In many countries, respect for human rights and the rule of
law is unsatisfactory and economic reforms have been slowed by financial
turmoil. These problems are aggravated by the lack of a democratic tradition,
uncertainty about Russia's future direction, and instability generated by
extremist groups.
In the year ahead, we will vigorously pursue
diplomatic and programmatic efforts to help countries in the region find the
right road. For example, we are pressing ahead as a co-chair of the Minsk
process in search of progress on Nagorno-Karabakh. We are renewing our request
for repeal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. We will seek progress in
implementing CFE commitments, and in insulating Georgia from the consequences of
the Chechen War. And with Turkey and its partners in the Caucasus and Central
Asia, we will take steps to build on the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline agreement.
We attach high importance to our strategic partnership with Ukraine,
knowing that an independent, democratic, and prosperous Ukraine is a key to
building a secure and undivided Europe. The Ukrainian people showed in last
year's elections that they want to get on with essential reforms. And President
Kuchma has vowed to make use of this mandate for decisive change.
We will do all we can to assist in strengthening democratic
institutions, improving the investment climate, and bolstering the rule of law.
We will also deepen our cooperation under the NATO- Ukraine Charter and
strengthen our joint nonproliferation efforts.
The past year in Russia
has been extraordinarily difficult. Political turmoil, corruption, terrorist
bombings, the war in Chechnya and continued economic problems have created
hardships for the Russian people, and at times strained relations with the West.
In the months ahead, we hope to re-establish and expand the basis for
cooperation between our countries. There is new leadership in the Kremlin and a
new Duma that may prove more constructive and forward- looking than the one it
replaced. Our nations are working together again in the Balkans, and consulting
closely on arms control and nonproliferation issues. We seek to further develop
ties between Russia and NATO. And it remains very much in our interests to help
Russia prevent the loss of nuclear materials and expertise, and to assist the
Russian people in strengthening civil society.
The key short-term test
for Russia's leaders remains the war in Chechnya.
Like many others, we
have criticized the Russian military for indiscriminate shelling and bombing in
that region. We understand the problems posed by terrorism, but deplore the
massive violations of human rights. We are concerned about the regional impacts
of the conflict, including refugee flows. And we also believe that the harsh
tactics being used will not work.
As I said recently in Moscow, "These
tactics will not set the stage for peace. Only a political resolution of the
conflict will do that. As long as the fighting continues, it will serve as a
magnet for extremism that could one day risk the stability of the entire
region."
It should not be surprising that the Russian transition is
proving difficult. After all, Communism was a seven-decade forced march to a
dead end, and no nation went further down that road than Russia. But there is
also no question that a peaceful and democratic Russia that is tackling its
economic problems and playing a constructive international role can make an
enormous contribution to the 21st Century. We have an enormous stake in Russian
success and will continue to work with Russian leaders whenever possible to
advance common interests.
B) The Middle East
We begin the new
century with new hope in the Middle East, where our primary objective remains a
just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors.
Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister
Shara journeyed to West Virginia, for intensive talks. Chairman Arafat later met
with President Clinton in Washington. And in Moscow, I co- chaired with Foreign
Minister Ivanov a very successful ministerial meeting of the Multilateral
Steering Group.
All this activity reflects that progress is now possible
on all tracks of the peace process. But reaching agreement on any of the
bilateral tracks remains a formidable task. President Clinton and I will
continue working with the parties to help them narrow differences and identify
compromises that satisfy core needs.
At this critical moment, it is
essential that the United States remain steady in its support for peace. I thank
Congress for providing funds late last year to implement the Wye River and
Sharm-el-Sheikh interim accords. I hope we will have your continued backing now,
as we seek to ensure the security and promote the prosperity of our friends in
the region.
As we strive to bring peace closer between Arabs and Israel,
we must also explore opportunities for constructive change elsewhere--for
example, in Iran.
Over the last two years, there have been unmistakable
signs of public support in Iran for a more open approach to the world. We have
welcomed President Khatemi's calls for people-to-people dialogue, his verbal
condemnation of terrorism, and his regret over the 1979 hostage episode. The
upcoming parliamentary elections could provide evidence that the trend towards
openness is gathering speed.
At the same time, Iran continues to pursue
some policies that we strongly oppose. The United States recognizes that there
are conflicting forces at work in Iran, as there are in many nations. Our hope
is that the Iranian people will want and be able to choose approaches that lead
to better relations.
Elsewhere in the Gulf, we remain focused on
containing the threat posed by the Iraqi regime's aggression and WMD
capabilities.
Last December, the UN Security Council approved a
Resolution establishing the means and mandate for resuming on-site weapons
inspections in Iraq, including a clear roadmap for assessing compliance. The
United States will work with Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Director of the new
Commission, towards fulfilling the Council's resolutions.
We will also
continue to make the point that lifting sanctions in the absence of compliance
by Baghdad with its WMD obligations is not an option. The Iraqi Government has
shown no evidence that it has learned the lessons of the past nine years. That
is why we are working for the day when the aspirations of the Iraqi people are
realized, and a new government makes it possible for their country to rejoin the
family of nations as a responsible and law-abiding member. To this end, we have
increased our financial and other assistance to the Iraqi National Congress, and
made clear that a change in Baghdad would lead to a change in U.S. policy.
At the same time, we remain committed to alleviating the hardships faced
by the Iraqi people. Since 1996, the "oil for food", which we strongly support
and helped conceive, has substantially improved nutrition. In Northern Iraq,
where assistance is distributed by the UN rather than the Iraqi Government,
child mortality rates are lower than they were prior to the Persian Gulf War.
America's interest in a stable and prosperous Middle East also depends
on whether the nations there work together to reform their economies, attract
investment, move in the direction of democracy and create opportunities for
their citizens. During the year 2000, we will be active in promoting these
principles in our discussions with the region's leaders and peoples.
C)
The Asia Pacific
No part of the world will play a greater role in
determining the character of the 21st Century than the Asia Pacific. The
region's stability and its continued development and democratization are of
profound interest to the United States. This is reflected in my ten visits to
the area since becoming Secretary of State.
The United States is deeply
committed to meeting our obligations to treaty allies (Australia, Japan, the
Republic of Korea (ROK), the Philippines, and Thailand), while striving to
promote economic and security cooperation with all countries. To this end, we
are working with friends and partners to strengthen existing regional
institutions, such as APEC, ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum, and to enhance
dialogues between and among nations.
Our most important bilateral
relationship in the Asia Pacific is with Japan, with whom we work closely on a
full range of security, economic and global issues. In recent years, we have
modernized our defense cooperation, negotiated steps to liberalize trade, and
developed a common agenda for action on matters such as global climate change,
international crime, and development in Africa.
Another ally, the
Republic of Korea, has become a source of regional stability under the able
leadership of President Kim Dae-jung. Over the past two years, the ROK
implemented painful economic reforms that have enabled it to emerge from the
Asian financial crisis. Even as it struggled with these difficult domestic
issues, it demonstrated regional leadership by contributing to the peace
operation in East Timor.
We fully support President Kim's policy of
engagement with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). This policy
seeks to reduce the DPRK's isolation, address humanitarian needs and prevent
destabilizing military incidents.
Over the past year, former Defense
Secretary William Perry and the State Department's Counselor, Ambassador Wendy
Sherman led a comprehensive review of our own policy toward the DPRK, in close
coordination with the ROK and Japan.
As a result, we have
expressed our willingness to improve relations with the DPRK as it addresses our
concerns about its missile and nuclear weapons programs.
Last September,
we reached an understanding with the North that it will refrain from any
long-range missile flight tests as long as negotiations to improve relations are
underway. We will continue such discussions at the end of this month, and
anticipate additional talks at a higher level about one month later.
The
DPRK's nuclear weapons-associated activities are another area of deep concern.
By freezing the North's nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and Taechon, which pose a
serious proliferation risk, the Agreed Framework is making a vital contribution
to stability. We need Congressional support for meeting our obligations under
the Framework, just as we expect the DPRK to meet its own.
Our policy
towards the DPRK reflects our desire for permanent reconciliation on the Korean
Peninsula. The question of ultimate reunification is one for Koreans to decide
through peaceful means, and we strongly encourage North-South dialogue. We also
support the Four Party Talks, which include China, the United States and both
Koreas. We and our allies want to engage the DPRK in a comprehensive manner so
that all sides may address issues of concern. But we are under no illusions.
Further progress depends on the DPRK's further willingness to engage seriously
with us.
We believe the new century can generate new momentum and mutual
benefits in our relations with China. As the President said in his State of the
Union Address, "Congress should support the agreement we negotiated to bring
China into the WTO, by passing Permanent Normal Trade Relations
(NTR)." If we do not grant permanent NTR, we will risk losing the market access
benefits of the agreement, and the right to enforce them through the WTO. The
result is that our competitors in Asia and Europe would reap those benefits
while American farmers and businesses would be left behind.
The economic
benefits we will gain by approving Permanent NTR for China do not conflict with
our other interests. Once in the WTO, China will be required to follow
international trading rules, open its regulations to public scrutiny and reduce
the role of state-owned enterprises. This will encourage growth in the rule of
law, and hasten the development of a more open society.
During the year
2000, we will be consulting closely with China on global and regional security
issues, including nonproliferation, South Asian security, and Korean stability.
We will seek to prevent tensions from increasing across the Taiwan Strait, and
promote cooperation in the South China Sea. We support the protection of Tibet's
heritage and will continue to urge Beijing to open a dialogue with the Dalai
Lama. And as we purse engagement with the PRC, we will continue our commitment
to faithful implementation of the Taiwan Relations Act.
Although the
Chinese people enjoy greater freedom of choice in economic and many personal
matters than in the past, progress in the area of political and other civil
rights is lacking. Examples in 1999 include the harsh prison sentences received
by leaders of the China Democracy Party, an intensified reeducation campaign to
control Tibetan monasteries, continued pressure on underground churches, and
efforts to repress the Falun Gong spiritual movement. As a result, we will work
for a Resolution expressing concern about human rights in China at the UN Human
Rights Commission in Geneva next month.
Last year was a time of historic
change in Indonesia, Southeast Asia's largest nation. The Indonesian people
deserve great credit for conducting free, fair and peaceful elections. The new
government, led by President Abdurrahman Wahid, merits broad support as it
strives to stabilize the economy, curb corruption, establish the rule of law,
cope with regional crises, and address past abuses of human rights.
These goals are simple to identify, but difficult to achieve. The new
President is widely respected for his humanity and wisdom. But to succeed, he
must make tough decisions and explain them in terms his people will understand
and accept. President Clinton is requesting $144 million this
year to aid Indonesia's quest for a stronger, stabler democracy.
Elsewhere in the region, we will continue to work with the UN, the
Philippines, Australia, Thailand, and others to bring lasting peace and
democratic rule to East Timor. And we will press for a meaningful dialogue in
Burma between the government and the democratic opposition, led by the National
League for Democracy (NLD). Burmese authorities must understand that the path to
acceptance and progress lies in movement towards a popularly supported
government in Rangoon. In Cambodia, we continue to work with the government and
UN to bring senior Khmer Rouge leaders before a tribunal that meets
international standards.
D) South Asia
Last week, the White
House announced that President Clinton will visit South Asia. His itinerary will
include India, the world's largest democracy, with whom we seek deeper
cooperation on issues that include nonproliferation, economic reform, science
and the environment. The President will also visit Bangladesh, a nation of more
than 100 million people, and a friend and partner on matters of both bilateral
and regional concern.
In nearby Pakistan, we are encouraging the
military authorities to make good on their pledge to return the country to
elected rule in a timely manner.
As for relations between India and
Pakistan, longstanding tensions have heightened as a result of the recent Indian
Airlines hijacking and the aftermath of last year's Kargil crisis. Our policy is
to encourage dialogue aimed at narrowing differences and preventing violence,
and we intend to remain actively engaged with both countries toward this end.
In Afghanistan, we have joined with neighboring countries in seeking an
end to the civil conflict, the closing of terrorist camps, and increased respect
for human rights, which include women's rights.
E) The Western
Hemisphere
The nations of Latin America and the Caribbean have made
historic strides in building democracy over the past two decades, but serious
problems remain in many countries, including political instability, economic
inequality, corruption and crime. Fortunately, there is a general consensus
across the region about how to deal with these challenges, and a willingness to
work cooperatively on them.
At the heart of this consensus is a
commitment to free trade and economic integration. In recent years, every major
economy in the region has liberalized its system for investment and trade; and
we are making progress toward achieving a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)
by 2005.
But the fruits of recent economic growth have not been evenly
distributed. While much of the region's population enjoys improved living
standards, many others have not seen any appreciable benefit. About a third of
Latin America's people live on $2 a day or less, and income
inequality is greater here than in any other region.
There is a real
risk that support for democracy and free markets will erode if these economic
disparities are not addressed. Last month's events in Ecuador serve as a warning
of what can happen when significant portions of a population feel left behind.
That is why the 1998 Santiago Summit of the Americas put special
emphasis on improving the quality and accessibility of education, especially to
the urban and rural poor, and to indigenous populations. We are also working
through the Summit process to promote judicial reform, good governance and other
steps to broaden access to the benefits of economic growth.
I believe
that history will regard this period as a turning point in our relations with
Mexico. Issues such as migration, counter-narcotics and cross-border law
enforcement will never be easy. But in recent years, we have developed effective
mechanisms, such as the Binational Commission and the High Level Contact Group,
to address such challenges, while also exploring ways to spur mutual economic
growth.
One of our most important priorities this year will be to
support Colombian President Andres Pastrana's comprehensive plan to fight
drug-trafficking, restore fiscal responsibility, and secure peace in his
country. As you know, President Clinton has asked that Congress provide an
additional $1.27 billion over the next two years for this
purpose. We are asking others in the international community to join in this
effort.
The IMF has already approved a new $2.7
billion program, and we are endorsing Bogota's request for nearly
$3 billion in loans from the World Bank and the Inter-American
Development Bank.
As I made clear to President Pastrana when I visited
Cartagena last month, our support for Plan Colombia rests on the Colombian
government's commitment to continue to take appropriate action against human
rights violators whether those violators are military, paramilitary, guerrilla
or just plain criminals. Under President Pastrana's leadership, there has
already been solid progress on this issue, but more remains to be done.
Neither criminals nor conflict respect national borders. Accordingly, we
must also step up our support for counternarcotics and alternative development
programs for Colombia's neighbors. It is not enough to drive drug criminals out
of Colombia. Our goal must be to drive them out of business--once and for all.
In Haiti, we are helping authorities and civil society prepare for
legislative and local elections to be held this spring. And we will be doing our
share to assist the new UN Mission in Support of Haiti, which will be providing
technical assistance on law enforcement and human rights.
In Cuba, Fidel
Castro continues to justify his pariah status by jailing dissidents and refusing
to hold free and fair elections. Last year, the international outcry against his
dictatorship grew even stronger. In April, the UN Commission on Human Rights
adopted a Czech- Polish resolution expressing concern "at the continued
violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba." And in November, at
the Ibero-American Summit in Havana, many world leaders met for the first time
with Cuban dissidents and called on the Cuban government to show greater respect
for human rights and democracy.
Over the past two years, President
Clinton has taken a series of steps to reach out to the Cuban people and help
prepare for a peaceful transition to democracy. Our goal is to strengthen
people-to-people ties and encourage the development in Cuba of peaceful
activities independent of the government.
F) Africa In Africa, our
challenge is to address pressing security and humanitarian concerns, while
helping to realize the continent's great human and economic potential.
An increasing number of Africa's leaders understand that the continent's
future prosperity depends on trade and foreign investment. They are working to
create a better environment for doing business, by privatizing state-run
enterprises, revamping commercial codes, and adopting sound fiscal policies. As
a result, annual economic growth has averaged nearly 4 percent over the past
five years.
The United States has a direct stake in seeing Africa's
economic progress continue. It means better opportunities for our workers and
companies. And it means that African nations could be stronger partners and less
dependent on outside aid. So I urge Congress to complete its good work to date
and grant final approval to the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This measure
would provide essential support for economic reform, and expand our trade with
one of the world's largest under-developed markets.
In Africa, as
elsewhere, we can have the most impact where we have strong regional allies. And
in Africa, the two most influential nations are Nigeria and South Africa.
Nine months ago, President Obasanjo became Nigeria's first elected
leader since 1983. Since then, he has waged a vigorous campaign to stamp out
corruption and revive his country's economy. But he faces daunting obstacles.
After years of military rule, Nigeria must rebuild its democratic
institutions, reinvigorate its Parliament, reform its legal system, and reinvent
its military under civilian control. It must also cope with complex regional
issues, including ethnic strife. Around the world, few democratic transitions
are as fragile or as important. Depending on its course, Nigeria can be a
powerful factor for instability or stability within the region. I ask your
support in providing the resources required to help Nigeria's democracy put down
roots and grow.
The United States greatly values its friendship with
South Africa. Under Presidents Mandela and Mbeki, South Africa has moved well
along the democratic path, but still faces urgent challenges. President Mbeki
has been working energetically to sell off state-run enterprises, attract
private sector investment, improve education and reduce crime. In the year
ahead, we will do all we can to assist and broaden our partnership with South
Africa's leaders and people.
South Africa and Nigeria are the two anchor
nations of Africa. Increasingly, epidemic disease is the continent's albatross.
Statistics are not adequate to describe the human destruction being caused
especially by HIV/AIDS. Over the next decade, tens of millions of children in
sub-Saharan Africa will be orphaned by the disease, infant and child mortality
may double and, in many countries, average life expectancy will decline sharply.
In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton proposed a new tax
credit to speed the development of vaccines for diseases like malaria, TB, and
AIDS that disproportionately afflict developing nations. And he is requesting an
increase of $150 million in our worldwide fight against AIDS
and other killer diseases. I urge your support for these requests.
This
past month at the United Nations Security Council in New York, we made Africa
our special focus. In addition to discussing the AIDS crisis, we also led
sessions on the conflicts in Angola, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of
Congo.
Because of its location and size, and because of the number of
countries involved, the conflict in Congo could be described as Africa's first
world war. The continent cannot hope to meet the aspirations of its people until
this war is history.
The Lusaka agreement, signed last summer, offers a
solid framework for ending the Congo war. And the international
community--including the United States--has a responsibility to support this
process. The Lusaka signatories have agreed to provide access, security and
cooperation to international peacekeepers. So I am asking Congress to support a
United Nations peace mission for Congo, consisting of 500 observers and roughly
5,000 troops for logistics and protection, with most of the soldiers coming from
African countries.
We have learned much over the past decade about the
"do's and don'ts" of UN missions. We must apply these lessons firmly and
realistically in this case. But we must also be resolute in our determination to
help Congo move from war to peace.
In addition, I hope you will support
the United Nations peacekeeping force for Sierra Leone. I visited that nation
last fall and met with victims of its terrible civil war. The parties have
agreed on a plan for healing wounds and building peace. We should help them do
so.
Finally, I hope the Senate will ratify the UN Convention to Combat
Desertification, which would enable the United States to be a better partner
with Africa in preserving agricultural land and making more efficient use of
natural resources.
III. GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS
America
is a global power with worldwide interests. Many of the actions and initiatives
we undertake are directed, as I have discussed, at particular countries or parts
of the world. Other policies are more encompassing and can best be considered in
global terms.
A) Protecting American Security The first of these is our
strategy for ensuring the fundamental security of our citizens and territory.
Fortunately, Cold War dangers belong to an earlier millennium. But today, we
face a variety of other threats, some fueled by technology's advance; some by
regional rivalry; some by ambition or hate.
Accordingly, our armed
forces must remain the finest in the world. But we also need first-class
diplomacy.
Because on many occasions, we will rely on diplomacy
as our first line of defense--to cement alliances, build coalitions, and find
ways to protect our interests without putting our fighting men and women at
risk.
At the same time, our diplomacy is stronger because we have the
threat of force behind it. It is by combining force and diplomacy, for example,
that we protect Americans from the threat posed by nuclear weapons.
Here, the military deterrent provided by our armed forces and the
technological edge they enjoy are indispensable. But we will all sleep better if
our deterrent never has to be used. The diplomatic challenge is to create a
political environment in which serious military threats to our country are less
likely to arise.
To this end, the United States has led in establishing
an international legal framework, centered on the Nuclear Non- Proliferation
Treaty, IAEA safeguards, and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions,
designed to prevent WMD from spreading or falling into the wrong hands.
Moreover, our Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative (ETRI) (building on
the 1992 Nunn-Lugar legislation) has done much to protect the American people,
destroying almost 5000 nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union; eliminating
nuclear weapons from three former Soviet Republics; and engaging 30,000 former
Soviet weapons scientists in peaceful ventures. The President is requesting
$974 million for ETRI in Fiscal Year 2001, including
$141 million for programs administered by the Department of
State.
We are also taking steps to protect ourselves from the new
threats posed by ballistic missiles.
Our policy includes diplomatic
efforts to restrain missile development, an option that a number of countries
have voluntarily foregone. Thirty-two nations are cooperating to limit
technology transfers through the Missile Technology Control Regime. And we are
doing all we can to prevent known proliferators from gaining access to advanced
missile technology.
We understand, however, that nonproliferation
efforts may not be enough. To protect our forces and allies abroad, we are
working to develop Theater Missile Defense Systems.
To protect ourselves
at home, we are developing and testing a limited National Missile Defense
system, with a decision on deployment possible as early as this summer. This
decision will take into account threat, technological feasibility,
affordability, and the overall strategic environment including our arms control
objectives.
But for NMD deployment to occur under the Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty, certain changes in that agreement would be necessary. We
have been discussing these with other nations, including Russia.
As I
told Acting Prime Minister Putin in Moscow during my recent visit, the United
States believes that the ABM Treaty contributes much to strategic stability. It
reassures leaders in both capitals about one another's capabilities and
intentions. And it has given us the confidence needed to pursue mutual
reductions in nuclear arsenals.
On the other hand, the strategic
environment has changed greatly in the 28 years since the Treaty was signed. The
Gulf War showed the dangers of theater-range missiles in hostile hands. And
tests of longer-range missiles by other nations raise concerns that must be
addressed.
To date, Russian leaders have opposed any modifications in
the ABM Treaty, and questioned severely the potential impact of such changes on
the entire system of international arms control.
We have made clear that
the limited changes we are contemplating would not undermine Russian security.
In fact, because Russia and the United States are vulnerable to the same
threats, we are prepared to cooperate with Moscow on missile defense. It is in
our mutual interests to consider arrangements that would preserve the essential
aims of the ABM Treaty, while protecting us from the new dangers we both face.
Unfortunately, our consideration of NMD has aroused concerns not only in
Russia, but also in Western Europe and elsewhere. I have had to address fears
expressed by my counterparts that America is intent on going it alone,
disregarding the interests of former adversaries and current allies alike.
These fears were highlighted by the Senate's vote last fall on the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The Administration made no secret
of its disappointment with that vote. We believe that the CTBT is very much in
America's national security interests. It would outlaw nuclear tests by others,
while locking in a technological status quo that is highly favorable to the
United States.
In considering the arguments for and against a nuclear
test ban, Americans must resist the temptation to think that the strength of our
armed forces means we no longer need help from others. It is simply impossible
to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction unless countries work
together.
International cooperation is also essential to safeguard our
citizens from other threats. As we saw several times during the past decade,
when America's military is called upon to act, we will often do so as part of a
coalition. Accordingly, I ask your support for our security assistance programs,
which contribute to the health of America's defense industrial base, take
advantage of opportunities to promote democratic practices, and help friends and
allies to develop armed forces that are more capable and better able to operate
with our own.
Another area where international cooperation is required
to protect our interests is in responding to the threat posed by international
terror. Because of our military strength, potential enemies may try to attack us
by unconventional means, including terrorist strikes and the possible use of
chemical or biological weapons. In recent years, the number of terrorist strikes
has declined, but their severity has risen.
In countering these threats,
we must be prepared at home and overseas. That is why we are taking strong
security measures and--at President Clinton's direction--improving our planning
for emergency response.
Through our diplomacy and training programs, we
help friendly governments to improve border security and share information about
those suspected of being affiliated with terrorist networks. We offer rewards
for terrorist suspects, and gather information to advise and warn Americans. We
strive to forge international agreements and cooperation that will leave
terrorists with no place to run, hide, operate or stash their assets. We do all
we can to bring suspected terrorists to the bar of justice, as we have in
several major cases, including the sabotage of Pan Am 103, and the tragic 1998
bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
And this year, we are proposing
in the President's budget the creation of a dedicated Center for Antiterrorism
and Security Training. This Center will help us to improve the skills of foreign
security personnel who are the front line of defense at airports, diplomatic
missions and other facilities frequented by our citizens while overseas.
B) Sustaining American Prosperity
A second overarching goal of
our foreign policy is to support American prosperity by promoting a healthy
world economy and by ensuring fair treatment for American businesses, farmers,
ranchers and workers.
The State Department values highly its
partnerships with America's private sector. We consult regularly with business,
agriculture and labor leaders. We work hard, both in Washington and in our
diplomatic missions, to help our citizens take advantage of business
opportunities, to enforce the protection of contractual and property rights, to
promote responsible labor and environmental standards, and to combat corruption
which harms foreign societies while discriminating against U.S. firms.
In addition, since President Clinton took office, the Administration has
negotiated more than 300 trade agreements, including the Uruguay Round and
agreements on information technology, financial services and basic
telecommunications. These agreements have helped us to find new markets, raise
living standards and fight inflation. Today, more than eleven million U.S. jobs
are supported by exports, and these are good jobs, paying--on the
average--significantly more than non-trade related positions.
This
morning, I urge your support for the Administration's initiatives to restore the
momentum for liberalizing global trade.
As President Clinton
made clear in his recent speech to the World Economic Forum, "open markets and
rule-based trade are the best engine we know of to lift living standards, reduce
environmental destruction and build shared prosperity."
The inability of
the World Trade Organization (WTO) to agree on the terms of a new trade round
during its December meeting in Seattle reflects the complexity of the issues
involved. Our priorities include broadening market-access liberalization,
strengthening and extending WTO rules, and addressing the concerns of both
developing countries and civil society.
The WTO must also proceed with
internal reforms so that it is more open in its methods and meetings, and
therefore seen clearly to be a public interest, not a special interest,
organization.
There is no question that changes to the global economy
have created new challenges for the trading system. We want to work with our
partners to enhance market access for the least developed countries through our
respective preferential programs. We want to engage the WTO and the
International Labor Organization (ILO) in a constructive dialogue, including
consideration of the relationship between core labor standards, trade policy and
social development. And we will continue to work to ensure that trade rules
support, not undermine, the ability of governments to protect the environment.
In addition, I urge members of this Committee to help us support
American prosperity by backing agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, the
Trade and Development Agency, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which
help our businesspeople take advantage of new markets abroad.
In this
era, American prosperity depends on the prosperity of others. So I ask your
support for the full range of our efforts to promote development around the
world.
Last year, the Earth's population surpassed six billion human
beings. More than one billion of them live on less than a dollar a day. More
than half have never made a telephone call. The new millennium has dawned on a
world divided as much as ever before between those who have much, and those who
have not.
It is in America's interest to help those who most need help
to pull themselves up. For we have learned from experience that desperation can
breed conflict, generate uncontrolled refugee flows, provide fertile ground for
criminals and terrorists, and contribute to global problems such as
environmental degradation and epidemic disease.
We also know that
sustained efforts to promote development can produce sustained progress. Between
1960 and 1990, the average life expectancy in the developing world rose by 17
years, infant mortality was cut in half, the rate of child immunization more
than doubled, and the percentage of children in school increased from less than
half to more than three quarters.
Obviously, the challenge of
development today is different than in the past. The world is multi-polar,
technology-driven, energized by more open markets and awash in enterprise, ideas
and information.
Those who are succeeding are first adapting. To be
effective, external assistance must be matched by internal energy and reform.
Democracy must be practiced, markets must be opened, investment encouraged and
corruption stopped. Marginalized sectors of the population must be given access
to the knowledge and skills they will need to compete in the 21st Century. And
governments must lead in educating their populations about wise environmental
and health practices, including awareness about HIV/AIDS.
Neither the
United States, nor any other country or institution, can bring sustainable
development to a nation whose government is incompetent or corrupt. But we can,
and should, do all we can to help those trying to help themselves gain the
capacity to do so successfully.
Accordingly, I ask your vote for
legislation to promote investment and trade, including the Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the Southeast Europe Trade
Preferences Act, and further extension of the Generalized System of Preferences.
I ask your support for President Clinton's initiative, in partnership
with the G-8, to provide debt relief for the most heavily indebted poor
countries, and to use a portion of that relief to address social problems and
conserve the environment.
I ask your approval of our request for funds
to support all of the varied and vital work of USAID, the world's finest and
most versatile development organization.
And I seek your backing for
other vital economic, technical and humanitarian assistance programs such as
those administered by the Multilateral Development Banks, the Inter-American and
African Development Foundations, our Peace Corps volunteers, UNICEF, the UN
Development Program, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
C)
Safeguarding the Environment The United States also has a major foreign policy
stake in protecting the global environment and in working to prevent
transboundary environmental problems that could harm our interests, lead to
conflicts or contribute to humanitarian disasters.
As societies grow and
industrialize, the absorptive capacities of the Earth will be severely tested.
Misuse of resources can produce shortages that breed conflict, famine, refugee
flows and further acts of environmental destruction.
That is why we have
incorporated environmental goals into the mainstream of our foreign policy, and
why we are pursuing specific objectives in areas such as forestry management,
coral reef protection and the conservation of marine resources in every part of
the world.
Priorities for the year 2000 include 1) helping to shape an
effective global response to the challenge of climate change; 2) working to
promote and gain world acceptance for a science-based standard for biosafety; 3)
gaining international agreement to phaseout the production of twelve persistent
chemical toxins; 4) developing multinational strategies for responding to the
costly problem of invasive species, protecting coral reefs, and managing
transboundary water resources; and 5) defeating efforts to weaken protections
for whales.
D) International Family Planning.
Last year, with
this Committee's leadership, Congress approved legislation enabling the United
States to begin paying down the arrears we owe to the United Nations.
Unfortunately, that law included unwise restrictions on our support for
international family planning. I ask your help in seeing that these restrictions
are not attached to legislation this year.
Contrary to what some
believe, the United States does not provide any funds to perform or promote
abortions overseas. Instead, our assistance is used for family planning services
that reduce abortions, promote maternal and child health, and save lives.
Pregnancy-related complications kill an estimated 600,000 women every
year. They are the leading cause of mortality among women of reproductive age in
developing countries. And experts believe that perhaps one in every four of
these deaths could be prevented through access to family planning.
Family planning also saves the lives of children. Eleven million boys
and girls die each year before reaching the age of five. Many could be saved if
births were spaced further apart, and mothers bore a higher proportion of their
children during their healthiest reproductive years.
Accordingly,
President Clinton is asking Congress this year to return U.S. support for
international family planning to 1995 levels. Moreover, we believe that private
groups overseas should be able to exercise their right of free speech and
publicize their views for or against reproductive rights without fearing loss of
U.S. funding. The restrictions imposed upon such groups this year should not be
carried over into next.
E) Fighting International Crime and Narcotics
A third global objective of our foreign policy is to fight and win the
struggle against the hydra-headed evil of international crime.
Drug
cartels and crime syndicates have expanded their operations since the end of the
Cold War, in part by capitalizing on the same technological advances that have
aided legitimate international commerce.
Recognizing the
seriousness of this threat, President Clinton has launched a comprehensive
effort to integrate all facets of the federal response to international crime.
The State Department is a key partner in this initiative.
We are working
with other nations around the globe to strengthen legal codes; fight corruption;
train police, prosecutors and judges; close criminal front companies; halt
illegal smuggling and money laundering; negotiate extradition treaties; and
bring criminals to justice.
In regard to illegal narcotics, we have
pursued a comprehensive strategy that includes support for eradication,
interdiction, alternative development, the seizure of drug assets and the
extradition to the United States of drug kingpins.
These efforts are
paying good dividends in our own hemisphere. Peru has cut coca cultivation by
more than 66% over the past four years, and Bolivia by 55% since 1997. And as I
have discussed earlier, we have greatly stepped up our efforts to assist
authorities in Colombia in their battle against drugs and crime.
In the
New Independent States, we continue to focus our efforts on law enforcement
training and helping legislators to draft anti-crime and corruption laws. We are
also negotiating agreements that will allow our own law enforcement officers to
cooperate more effectively with their counterparts in these countries.
In Africa, Nigeria is the key. A significant portion of the heroin
interdicted in the U.S. is traceable to Nigerian smuggling organizations.
Because of the new government in that country, the prospects for improvement are
encouraging. It is essential, however, that we have the flexibility in
administering our programs to devote sufficient resources to this continent.
F) Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law
A core element in
American foreign policy is our support for democracy, the rule of law, religious
tolerance and human rights. We view these not solely as American or Western
values, but as universal norms applicable to all people.
In 1900, no
country in the world had a government elected on the principle of universal
suffrage in multiparty, competitive elections. Today, according to Freedom
House, 120 nations representing 58% of the world's population, fit this
definition. Our goal, in partnership with others, is to preserve and strengthen
democracy where it exists and to lend appropriate support to democratic
aspirations where it does not.
Earlier in this statement, I mentioned
some of the specific programs we use to aid democratic transitions, support free
and fair elections and help democratic forces build civil society.
These
programs reflect our ideals and serve our interests.
We know from
experience that democratic governments tend to be more successful at preventing
conflicts, maintaining stability, spurring social progress, and building
prosperous economies than regimes that fear their own people.
I
personally look forward to attending in Warsaw in June a conference convened by
democracies from Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa. Its purpose will be to
affirm the value of democratic principles and draw attention to the many facets
of true democracy. These go far beyond holding elections to include a free
press, independent political parties and labor organizations, and a legal system
that protects the civil, political and economic rights of the people.
We
also support democratic principles by striving to elevate global standards of
human rights and respect for the rule of law. Our goal is to make the 21st
Century an era of steady progress in each of these areas, not a time of
consolidation or settling for the status quo.
Accordingly, the United
States will continue to support democratic ideals and institutions however and
wherever we can effectively do so.
We will continue to advocate
increased respect for human rights, vigorously promote religious freedom, urge
accountability for crimes against humanity wherever they occur, and firmly back
the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia.
We will support efforts to help women gain fair access to the levers of
economic and political power, work with others to end the pernicious trafficking
in women and girls, and renew our request for Senate approval of the Convention
to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
We will push for
global ratification of a Convention to ban the worst forms of child labor, and
expand partnerships with the private sector to eliminate abusive working
conditions in factories abroad, especially those producing for the U.S. market.
And we will remain leaders in the international effort to prevent harm
to civilians from anti-personnel landmines. Through the President's "Demining
2010" Initiative, we are working with official and nongovernmental organizations
everywhere to detect, map, mark and destroy mines; increase mine awareness;
improve mine detection technology; and care for the victims of mines.
IV. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
Last October 1, the State Department and
United States Information Agency (USIA) merged. This was a key step in the
reorganization of our foreign policy institutions called for by the
Administration and Congress.
The merger enabled us to make public
diplomacy a core element in our approach to foreign affairs by bringing new
expertise and perspectives into our policymaking team.
Public diplomacy
advances U.S. interests by helping others to understand our society, culture and
values, and builds long-term mutual ties through the Fulbright scholar and
student programs. It can also be a very practical tool for influencing events.
During the conflict in Kosovo, for example, our Internet Assistance Initiative
helped us to manage data generated by the massive humanitarian effort, while
also aiding refugees in locating loved ones who had become separated. More
recently, we used public diplomacy to warn against a breakdown of the
constitutional order in Ecuador.
In addition, the State Department's
International Visitors Program has been remarkably successful at identifying
world leaders early in their careers. Past participants include no less than
three dozen current Presidents and Prime Ministers.
I congratulate
Members of the Committee for your support during the reorganization process, and
urge your backing for the full range of public diplomacy programs in the year to
come.
V. MANAGING FOR SECURITY AND SUCCESS
Mr. Chairman, one of
my key goals has been to ensure that I leave behind a State Department that is
more modern, better-managed, more diverse, and more effectively organized than
when I took office. With bipartisan Congressional backing, we have made
significant progress.
The Department's integration with ACDA and USIA
has been successful. We have greatly improved passport and consular services. We
have modernized communications, gone on-line, and upgraded training. Guided by
the Report of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, we are striving to
"rightsize" our diplomatic posts, and achieve better inter-agency teamwork under
our chiefs of mission abroad and the President and Secretary of State here at
home.
Above all, we are concentrating on improved security for our
personnel, our posts and the information we handle.
Since August 1998,
the Africa Embassy bombings have served as a searing reminder that the
protection of our diplomatic missions demands unrelenting vigilance and a fresh
influx of resources.
Since that tragedy, with help from Congress, we
have made a significant downpayment towards our unmet construction needs, while
increasing training and hiring additional security personnel.
The President's budget request includes $500
million in FY 2001 funds for facility replacement, $200 million
for enhanced perimeter security, $16 million for new security
professionals, and $328 million for recurring costs associated
with security upgrades. It also seeks advance appropriations of more than
$3 billion between FY 2002 and FY 2005 to continue replacing
our highest-risk embassies and consulates.
Within the Department, David
Carpenter, the first law enforcement professional to serve as Assistant
Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, has taken a number of steps to
tighten security. These include enhanced perimeter protection, a tougher escort
policy, and a new surveillance detection program now operational at most of our
posts.
I have personally placed a strong emphasis on ensuring the
protection of classified information and the security of our facilities. My
message is clear that security is everybody's business, every day.
In
the days immediately prior to Millennium Eve, I was in almost constant contact
with Assistant Secretary Carpenter and our Counter- Terrorism Coordinator,
Michael Sheehan, as we worked with other U.S. and foreign agencies--amidst a
plethora of threats--to deter, detect and prevent terrorist acts.
During
the year ahead, I will have no higher priority than to see that security in
every aspect of Department operations, both internally and in responding to
external threats, is first rate both in effort expended and results achieved.
VI. CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, the dawn of the millennium has only
intensified our awareness of the passage of time. We conduct much of our daily
communications and business through technologies that didn't exist or were in
their infancy only a decade ago. The patterns of international relations we
lived with for so long have been scrambled beyond recognition; the new patterns
shift like a kaleidoscope with every turn of the calendar's page.
We
live in a world transformed that will not stop changing. No country is more
comfortable in such an environment than America, but we would be lost except for
what has not changed, and that is America's purpose.
Some decades ago,
when Cold War tensions were at their highest, Walter Lippman wrote about the
realities of his time in words that serve as a warning to ours:
With all
the danger and worry it causes...the Soviet challenge may yet prove...a
blessing. For...if our influence...were undisputed, we would, I feel sure,
slowly deteriorate. Having lost our great energies (and) daring because
everything was...so comfortable. We would...enter into the decline which has
marked...so many societies...when they have come to think there is no great work
to be done...and that the purpose of life is to hold on and stay put. For then
the night has come and they doze off and they begin to die.
Our
challenge is to prove Lippman wrong; to employ our energy, retain our daring,
and understand that our responsibilities are similar in magnitude, if not so
obviously in drama, as those fulfilled by our predecessors.
It is true
we face no Hitler or Stalin. But it is as great a mission to create the
conditions under which such evil does not again threaten us, as it would be to
oppose such evil if and when it did.
There are no final frontiers for
America. We are not and have never been a status quo country. We have always
believed that the future can be made better than the past. We are doers.
In the year ahead, we have the chance to add another proud chapter in
the history of American leadership, in search of peace, in defense of freedom,
on behalf of prosperity, and in service to our collective boss--the American
people. I have no doubt that if we are united in that quest, we will succeed.
Thank you very much.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 18, 2000
