[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     ADMINISTRATION FOREIGN POLICY

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, it is 16 months since the Clinton 
administration came into office. When President Clinton received the 
mantle of leadership from President Bush, the world was a far different 
place than when President Bush had assumed the Presidency 4 years 
earlier.
  When Mr. Clinton took the oath of office, the threat of nuclear war 
between the United States and the Soviet Union, after hanging over the 
entire world for two generations, was gone--as was the Soviet Union.
  The Berlin Wall, a symbol of Soviet communism for more than 30 years, 
was a pile of rubble. The United Nations, freed from the frozen 
confines of the cold war, was being used for humanitarian purposes.
  The United States had proven itself as a leader and reliable partner 
in world affairs, as was seen in the coalition we built to fight the 
Persian Gulf war. Nations emerging from years of totalitarian darkness 
in the cold war were seeking--with our help--to translate our ideals 
into action.
  After 16 months into the Clinton administration it is time to ask: 
Where in the world do we stand? Seeking that answer has many shaking 
their heads in wonderment. Let us examine the record:
  The high hopes of the United Nations as a force for humanitarian 
purposes foundered in the deserts of Somali on the rocks of 
nationbuilding and a posse hunted down a war lord.
  In peacekeeping, the United Nation's credibility is under strain. The 
use of American dollars appears to sustain operations that provide 
little return for high cost.
  A confused command structure has held the United Nations up to 
ridicule as it struggles to define and implement policy.
  In world capitals, our Nation is being challenged by adversaries and 
allies alike. Many are questioning whether Mr. Clinton has the sense of 
purpose of his predecessors.
  During the Reagan-Bush years, the United States sought to define U.S. 
foreign policy in lines that were clear and bright so that allies and 
adversaries would know just where we stood on the issues.
  We succeeded largely because we understood that, to succeed, our 
foreign policy required bipartisan support.
  The Clinton administration contends that it seeks a bipartisan 
foreign policy--and we would welcome a bipartisan foreign policy. But 
bipartisanship is a two-way street.
  This administration's brand of bipartisanship asks Republicans not 
how to help chart the course but to cushion the crash landings of its 
foreign policy initiatives.
  In his candidacy, President Clinton promised to ``focus like a laser 
on the economy.'' The implication of that statement was that foreign 
policy did not require the same kind of concentrated thinking which he 
planned to devote to domestic issues.
  But, just as we observe on such issues as the trade status of China, 
export controls over dual-use technology, and other such concerns, 
foreign policy and economic policy become inseparably interwoven.
  Regrettably, the administration's approach to foreign policy looks 
and sounds more like a pinball machine--all flashing lights and 
buzzers, not knowing where the ball is going to land.
  Headlines in the news media tell the story: From the Chicago Tribune 
of May 18--``U.S. Steps Back From U.N. Mission in Rwanda''; from the 
Philadelphia Inquirer of May 19--``White House Weighs Face-Saving 
Measures on Chinese Trade''; from yesterday's Washington Post--
``Clinton's Solution on Chinese Trade May Be Problem.''
  An editorial in the Baltimore Sun of May 17 described the 
administration's latest peace initiative in Bosnia as ``an American 
retreat from untenable policy positions.''
  The respect and regard with which our Nation is held in the world 
cannot long withstand the repeated effects of such a disjointed 
approach to foreign policy.
  We must not squander our Nation's resolve and determination which has 
been built up over the years, and our support for the democratic ideals 
for which our Nation stands.
  It is time for the administration to take up the mantle of world 
leadership that it sought, received, and with which it was invested 16 
months ago.

                          ____________________