[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 63 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY: DOES A DEBACLE LIE AHEAD?

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when President Clinton assumed the office 
and the responsibilities of the Presidency, everyone knew he was not 
going to be the foreign policy president. Notwithstanding, it was hoped 
that Mr. Clinton would assemble a strong foreign policy team with the 
mission of thinking out international problems--and with providing the 
President with sound recommendations upon which he could base his 
decision.
  Regrettably, that has not been the case. As someone has observed the 
Clinton foreign policy team consists largely of Carter retreads, 
friends of Bill and Vietnam war protesters.
  I am a Republican, but I am an American first. The situation that now 
exists does not bring any joy to me. It is troubling. It is serious. It 
is dangerous. Charles de Gaulle said, ``There are no friends in 
international politics.'' His point, of course, was that there are only 
nations that respect you, that fear you or nations that hold you in 
contempt.
  Democrats and Republicans alike know that this administration has 
caused international respect and international fear of the United 
States to disappear. Only international contempt is left. I am aghast 
at seeing Boutros Boutros-Ghali jerk the United States around.
  What has America come to when a few thugs in Haiti have the nerve to 
turn a United States warship away? How should others interpret U.S. 
kowtowing to Aristide in the face of his contemptuous disdain for the 
United States? Given how the United States bows, and scrapes with the 
likes of Aristide, is there any surprise when the Chinese treat the 
Secretary of State of the United States with contempt, as they did on 
his recent trip to Beijing?
  A new low in U.S. foreign policy history.
  There is an actuarial principle employed by experts who calculate 
insurance premiums for industrial customers: when a pattern of many 
small accidents occurs, you raise the premium, because a major accident 
is just a matter of time.
  The same holds true for those assessing foreign policy risks; a 
pattern of many smaller miscues suggests that debacles lie ahead.
  The time has come to recalculate the insurance premium on this 
administration's foreign policies, and perhaps take out some additional 
risk insurance.
  Neither the American people nor foreign leaders have much confidence 
in this administration's foreign policy management, and for good cause. 
Neither the Serbian warlords, nor the municipality of Singapore places 
importance on the word of the man who occupies America's highest office 
in the one remaining superpower.
  There are two ways that a beleaguered President can recoup his 
credibility. He can send American troops somewhere on a shoot-em-up 
mission that may or may not solve his problems. Indeed, his problems 
may worsen in the aftermath of a landing on some distant coast. 
Frankly, in the aftermath of the draconian cuts in our military 
strength during this administration, invasions may no longer be an 
option.
  The other, less expensive method of repairing credibility involves 
performing major surgery in both the Department of State and the 
National Security Council. Professional, true professionals, hard-nosed 
professionals--a complete House cleaning--must replace the retreads, 
the friends of Bill and the Vietnam war protestors. For the security of 
the United States this is imperative. This must be done now. If it is 
not, a major catastrophe will surely follow.
  There is, of course, a danger in the second course of action as well. 
In the event that a new team at the Department of State and the 
National Security Council continues in the current mode of visionless, 
flip-flopping foreign policy, the entire world will know for sure what 
it now perceives: That the problem with American foreign policy does 
not rest with the State Department or the National Security Council, 
but with the President himself.

                          ____________________