[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]

 
            DRIFT AND DISORDER IN THE CLINTON FOREIGN POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, during this Member's service on the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, I have sought to operate in a bipartisan 
manner. This Member has always adhered to the old adage that politics 
should stop at the water's edge. On many issues, from South Africa to 
Chile to China, this Member worked with his colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, in order to forge a consensus policy. Therefore, 
this Member rises to voice his concerns about the Clinton 
administration's foreign policy with great reluctance and only after 
considerable thought.
  But this Member cannot, and this House should not, remain silent in 
the face of the increasingly troublesome drift in American foreign 
policy; a drift that, if allowed to continue, will have a devastating 
effect on international stability, the world economy, and the influence 
and well-being of the United States. It is this Member's fear, for 
example, that the administration's indecision and uncertainty on the 
proper role of military force in U.S. foreign policy is undermining the 
U.S. status as leader of the free world. Moreover, this lack of 
understanding of how and when to use military force is actually 
increasing the likelihood that we will become engaged in a conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, the American public elected a President who clearly 
identified domestic policy and especially the economy as the primary 
focus of his administration. Repeating the slogan ``It's the economy, 
stupid!'', candidate Bill Clinton never hid his apparently disdain for 
the importance of foreign policy and defense and security matters.
  But, while a presidential candidate may cavalierly ignore foreign 
policy matters or take positions of political convenience on such 
matter, the leader of the free world does not have that luxury. The 
President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed 
forces of the world's greatest democracy and most powerful nation. As 
such, he cannot be disengaged from the world scene. The President 
cannot get involved only when it suits him. The President must learn 
that a coherent policy cannot be achieved by postponing decisions until 
an international crisis has spun out of control. The President must 
learn that achieving a coherent U.S. foreign policy is sometimes 
difficult and always important.

  As Karen Elliot House noted in the May 4, 1994, edition Wall Street 
Journal, ``the paradox of Mr. Clinton is that he is smart enough to 
understand that America is inextricably linked to trends and event 
beyond its borders; so far, however, he hasn't been wise enough to 
recognize his rhetoric must have some connection to reality.'' The 
President or his key policy spokespersons cannot, for example, 
repeatedly threaten air strikes, or invasions, or other military 
operations without undermining the credibility of the United States and 
reducing the effectiveness of those options and reducing available 
options.
  The inevitable result is that we have come to the position where 
rogue regimes and international outlaws are concluding that America 
neither says what it means nor means what it says--and that there seems 
to be little, if any, penalty for challenging the international order. 
Let me offer just a few examples.
  In the case of North Korea's blatant efforts to achieve a highly 
destabilizing nuclear capability, President Clinton announced, 
absolutely and unequivocally, that America would not tolerate even one 
North Korean nuclear device. However, North Korea has continued to defy 
both the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency 
[IAEA], and it has subsequently been revealed that Pyongyang already 
possessed sufficient fissile material to build several bombs. The U.S. 
response--which has vacillated between shrill denunciations and threats 
of reprisals, and muted offers of concessions if North Korea would 
return to the negotiating table--has severely undermined our leadership 
on this volatile issue. Not surprisingly, our friends and allies in the 
region look at the U.S. response with considerable skepticism.
  This Member would also point to the matter of the arms embargo for 
Bosnia. Over the past year, the administration has repeatedly suggested 
to our allies that the embargo to be lifted and the Bosnian Moslems be 
allowed to arm themselves. Our allies have unanimously rejected this 
proposal. I raise this concern because this body will, after we return 
after the Memorial Day district work period, vote on an amendment to 
the Defense authorization that would lift the arms embargo. And, Mr. 
Speaker, the administration--which for over a year has publicly 
supported the lifting of the embargo--has now pulled out all stops to 
defeat the amendment. It seems that the administration has second 
thoughts now that the legislative branch wants to encourage action 
instead of empty rhetoric.

  The ongoing crisis in Haiti is equally alarming. President Clinton 
has repeatedly threatened to use force to return Mr. Aristide to power. 
Yet the junta that rules in Port-au-Prince no longer takes these 
threats seriously. As a result, the administration has been reduced to 
tightening an embargo that primarily punishes the poor and suffering 
masses. The administration's treatment of the asylum issues has been 
equally erratic, and has been driven in large part by wholly 
inappropriate domestic political considerations. The perception is that 
the administration had allowed our asylum policy to be dictated by 
Randall Robinson's fasting, and this must not be allowed to happen. The 
net result is that the military junta remains firmly in control of 
Haiti, and a tide of refugees has once again taken to the water and to 
building boats in an attempt to escape the deprivation that our embargo 
is accentuating. Equally disturbing, the Clinton administration's 
policy failure with regard to Haiti seems to have provided a ready-made 
excuse for intervening to restore President Aristide, an effort that 
clearly would be inappropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, these and other fiascos have resulted in a startling 
decline in international credibility for the United States. Our 
adversaries, the rogue regimes and potential aggressor nations of the 
world, are encouraged by every new misstep.

                          ____________________