[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E729-E730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        THE FIVE GLOBAL REALITIES

                                 ______


                        HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 29, 1995
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the distinguished Senate 
majority leader, Mr. Dole of Kansas, gave a landmark address on foreign 
policy at the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom Policy Conference.
  In this address, Senator Dole outlined five new global realities that 
affect America's interests abroad, including: First, we are headed into 
a ``Golden Age of Capitalism,'' second, we must stabilize a ``New World 
Energy Order'' based on peace in the Middle East, third, our national 
security is increasingly dependent on our response to the spread of 
weapons of mass destruction, fourth, we must recognize the challenge 
posed by religious extremism, and fifth, our rivalry with Russia's 
historic imperial ambitions has not ended.
  I commend the members attention to this speech and ask that it be 
printed in full at this point in the Record:
         Winning the Peace: American Leadership and Commitment

                             (By Bob Dole)

       I can't help but think back to the day in January of 1994, 
     when President Nixon made his last visit to the United States 
     Capitol.
       The occasion was the 25th anniversary of his inauguration 
     as President. And over 100 past and present Senators and 
     Congressmen--Republicans and Democrats alike--attended a 
     lunch honoring President Nixon that Bob Michel and I hosted.
       At the conclusion of the lunch, President Nixon stood--and 
     without a note in his hand--delivered one of the most 
     compelling speeches many of us could remember.
       As always, he talked politics, and he also shared some 
     personal reflections on his life and career. But the majority 
     of his remarks were devoted to his life's passion--foreign 
     policy.
       President Nixon served as our guide, leading us on an 
     around-the-world tour, offering his unique perspective on the 
     strengths and weaknesses of our allies and adversaries, and 
     on the future as he saw it.
       In his remarks, he repeated a statement that he made again 
     and again during the last year of his life. He said, ``The 
     Soviets have lost the Cold War, but the United States has not 
     yet won it.''
       Those words were true then--and are just as true today. And 
     while the title of this conference--``After Victory''--has a 
     nice ring to it, I believe the declaration may be a bit 
     premature. It is, after all, possible to win the war and lose 
     the peace--as the years between World War I and World War II 
     demonstrate.


                         world still uncertain

       Don't get me wrong. The stage is set. We are the world's 
     only superpower. And the words spoken by Nikita Khrushchev in 
     that famous ``kitchen debate'' were dead wrong. Not only will 
     America's children never live under communism--neither will 
     Russia's children. Still, there are far too many gains to 
     consolidate, and far too many uncertainties in the world to 
     say that a final peace has been won.
       For example, there is a resurgent Russia, asserting its 
     position around the globe. China has international ambitions 
     of its own, and is in the midst of a leadership transition. 
     There are international terrorists--often state-supported. 
     There are global crime syndicates. There are extremist 
     movements based on religion or ethnic origin. While none of 
     these compare to the challenge of the Soviet empire, each of 
     these can pose threats to important American interests.


            five global realities affect america's interests

       It seems to me these multifaceted threats should be viewed 
     in the context of five clear global realities which affect 
     America's fundamental interests. Only by recognizing these 
     realities--and dealing with them with the same commitment 
     which led to the defeat of Soviet Communism--will America 
     truly be able to claim victory.


             reality no. 1: the ``golden age of capitalism

       The first new reality is that the whole world is plunging 
     headlong into what David Hale of the Kemper Organization in 
     Chicago has termed a ``new golden age of capitalism.''
       I remember when Lech Walesa told me that the definition of 
     a communist economy was ``100 workers standing around one 
     shovel.'' Now, in places like Poland, Russia, India, Latin 
     America, and
      even China--four billion people formerly under some form of 
     socialism are now fighting with everything they can lay 
     hands on to not just grab a shovel--but to build shovel 
     factories.
       There are now more than 30 stock markets in the developing 
     world, and capitalization of the four-year-old Shanghai 
     securities exchange has reached $30 billion. Deng Xiaoping 
     himself has said that no one cares any more what color the 
     cat is, as long as it catches mice. The bottom line is that 
     everyone wants to trade, and everyone wants to create and use 
     capital on a world-wide basis.
       While this new ``golden age of capitalism'' offers great 
     opportunity for America, we must remember that many of the 
     countries so eager to enjoy the benefits of membership in the 
     world trading system may not fully understand or accept the 
     rules and discipline that go with it.
       A trade war was averted with China, but other threats to 
     U.S. commercial interests will surely arise in the coming 
     months and years, and our continued vigilance and leadership 
     will be required.


             reality no. 2: the ``new world energy order''

       The second inescapable reality of the post-20th century 
     world is that the security of the world's oil and gas 
     supplies will remain a vital national interest of the United 
     States and of the other industrial powers.
       The Persian Gulf--the heartland of world energy for half a 
     century--is still a region of many uncertainties. Saudi 
     Arabia has been weakened financially. Iran and Iraq continue 
     to exhibit great hostility to the West and pose threats to 
     their neighbors. And the boundaries of the oil and gas 
     heartland are being redrawn to the north, to include the 
     great hydrocarbon deposits of the Caucasus, Siberia, and 
     Kazakhstan.
       In this ``new energy order,'' many of the most important 
     geopolitical decisions--ones on which a nation's sovereignty 
     can depend--will deal with the location and routes for oil 
     and gas pipelines. In response, our strategy, our diplomacy 
     and our forward military presence need readjusting.


          reality no. 3: spread of weapons of mass destruction

       The third inevitable reality for America--and for the 
     world--is the fact that while the Berlin Wall may have 
     crumbled, weapons of mass destruction haven't.
       Listen to just a partial roll call of countries and groups 
     that already possess nuclear, biological or chemical weapons: 
     North Korea. Iraq. Iran. Libya.
       Have any of these nations earned our trust? And given their 
     past behavior, is it any surprise that there are startling 
     signs that a world wide black market in nuclear weapons has 
     emerged?
       All this is taking place as talks to review the global 
     treaty limiting the spread of nuclear weapons will soon 
     begin. Even if the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty is 
     extended indefinitely, however, we must avoid falling into a 
     false sense of security. We must prepare now for the future.
       Iraq, Iran, and North Korea all illustrate the failures of 
     traditional non-proliferation efforts, which depend largely 
     on the cooperation of other states.
       Only after Desert Storm did the West learn just how far 
     Iraqi nuclear ambitions had progressed. And instead of 
     announcing that the United States will veto any efforts to 
     ease or end U.N. sanctions on Iraq, the administration 
     dispatches an envoy to plead with the Europeans for 
     cooperation. Where would such timidity have gotten us in the 
     Cold War?
       Iran also appears poised for a great leap forward in its 
     nuclear program--thanks to a cash-hungry Russia doing for 
     Iran what the Clinton Administration has done for North 
     Korea.
       And make no mistake about it, the Agreed Framework with 
     North Korea has little prospect of successfully addressing 
     the North Korean threat, and apparently, has already been 
     violated by Pyongyang.
       American leadership in addressing these non-proliferation 
     challenges is essential if additional states are not to 
     choose the nuclear option. It's worth asking: What would we 
     have done--or not done--if Iraq had one or two nuclear 
     weapons in 1990? Preventive military action as a non-
     proliferation policy tool cannot be ruled out.
       There are defensive options, however, that could provide 
     the United States and our allies with protection against 
     accidental and limited ballistic missile strikes. Pursuing an 
     effective
      ballistic missile defense capability should be a top 
     priority for U.S. defense policy now and for the 
     foreseeable future.


  reality no. 4: increase in extremist religious and ethnic movements

       The fourth new global reality is the increase in violence 
     due to extremist religious and ethnic movements in many parts 
     of the globe.
       Some of these movements, like the tribal warfare in Rwanda, 
     or conflicts in Burma or West Africa have little direct 
     impact on American interests.
       However, some of the instability and turmoil due to ethnic 
     and religious violence is important for American interests--
     and could lead to the disintegration of key states. Serbian 
     genocidal aggression in the Balkans, for example, threatens 
     to spill over to Macedonia, Albania, and beyond. American and 
     European inaction in the face of that aggression cannot help 
     but embolden other radical ``ethno-nationalists'' by giving 
     them a green light for ethnic cleansing.
       [[Page E730]] The Indian rebellion in Mexico coupled with 
     financial uncertainty has resulted in genuine security 
     concerns on our southern border--and make no mistake that 
     illegal immigration is a security threat.
       A key NATO ally in Turkey faces Islamic extremism and a 
     separatist ethnic movement. Violent Islamic fundamentalists 
     threaten the government in Algeria, and have launched an 
     assault on Egypt. How long would the Camp David Treaty be 
     honored if fundamentalists took power in Egypt?
       Islamic terrorists seek to destroy the peace process 
     between Israel and the PLO--and may be having some success. 
     With support from Iran and others, Islamic terrorists also 
     demonstrated at the World Trade Center that America is not 
     immune from attack.
       And ethnic turmoil in the former Soviet Union cannot be 
     ignored, as warfare has occurred in five former republics. 
     And the Chechens may be just one of many ethnic groups 
     willing to use violence to alter boundaries originally set by 
     Joseph Stalin.
       In short, the list of world ``hot spots'' is far too 
     lengthy for anyone to conclude that America can become 
     complacent.


                   reality no. 5: rivalry with russia

       And this leads to the fifth global reality we must face: 
     the fact that geopolitical rivalry with Russia did not end 
     with the demise of Soviet Communism.
       On his last trip abroad, President Nixon spoke before the 
     Russian State Duma, and he foreshadowed a change in Russian-
     American relations, saying: ``Russia is a great power, and 
     Russia as a great power must chart its own course in foreign 
     policy . . . When we have differences, we should not assume 
     they will be overcome by a good personal relationship even at 
     the highest level.''
       And as we have seen time and time again, the foreign policy 
     course that Russia is charting, is one that is often in 
     conflict with American interests.
       For example:
       Russia stepped in the middle of the North Korea agreement 
     by offering to provide nuclear reactors--which would have the 
     clear effect of killing the U.S. brokered deal.
       Russia continues to threaten prospective NATO members over 
     alliance expansion, thereby confirming the need to enlarge 
     NATO sooner rather than later.
       In December 1994, Russia vetoed a sanctions resolution on 
     Serbia in the U.N. Security Council, its first substantive 
     veto since the height of the Cold War in 1985.
       Russia persists in supplying weapons and nuclear technology 
     to the rogue regime in Iran.
       Russia continues to maintain an intelligence facility and 
     support personnel in Cuba, thereby prolonging Castro's 
     oppression.
       Russian pressure, subversion and intimidation of the 
     sovereign states in the ``Near Abroad'' follows a historical 
     pattern set long before the Bolsheviks took power in 1917.
       As Dr. Kissinger said last month before the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee, ``. . . what we dealt with in the Cold 
     War was both communism and imperialism, and while communism 
     was defeated, the trend toward imperialism still exists.''
       Let me be clear in saying that no one has been more 
     supportive of President Yeltsin than I. In June 1991, I went 
     to Andrews Air Force base to meet President Yeltsin virtually 
     alone,
      since the United States State Department believed Gorbachev 
     was the ``only game in town.''
       But just as it was wrong to place too much focus on 
     Gorbachev in 1991, it is wrong in 1995 to ignore that fact 
     that President Yeltsin has made serious errors, has moved 
     toward authoritarian rule, and has lost the political support 
     of virtually all reform-minded Russians.
       The Clinton Administration's misguided devotion to a 
     ``Russian First'' policy--which has turned into a ``Yeltsin 
     first'' policy--resulted in the loss of a tremendous 
     opportunity to state American concerns forcefully before 
     thousands were slaughtered in Chechnya.


                        new realism about russia

       A ``new realism'' about Russia and its prospects for the 
     future does not mean a return to the Cold War past. It does 
     mean developing a more honest relationship, one that does not 
     paper over important policy differences with an appeal to 
     personal ties.
       New realism means emphasizing the significance of Russia's 
     1996 elections, and of the pivotal importance of a peaceful, 
     democratic transition of power.
       And new realism means that developments like arms sales to 
     Iran, violence in Chechnya, and U.N. vetoes on behalf of 
     aggressors should not be excused, ignored and minimized. Our 
     differences with Russia should be identified--they should be 
     negotiated when possible and condemned when necessary. Such 
     an approach would ultimately serve both the Russian and the 
     American people better than defending, denying and 
     rationalizing Russian misdeeds.


                     tests for american leadership

       Let me conclude by sharing with you words that Richard 
     Nixon spoke at the announcement of the creation of the Center 
     for Peace and Freedom in January 1994.
       ``Some are tired of leadership. They say (American) carried 
     that burden long enough. But if we do not provide leadership, 
     who will? The Germans? The Japanese? The Russians? The 
     Chinese? Only the United States has the potential. . . to 
     lead in the era beyond peace. It is a great challenge for a 
     great people.''
       Ladies and gentlemen, President Nixon was right. Leadership 
     does come with a price tag. But it is a price worth paying.
       Dealing with the five realities I have outlined will test. 
     American's resolve and her leadership. If we fail those 
     tests--if we refuse the mantle of leadership--any declaration 
     of victory will be a long time coming.
       But I am an optimist. Like Richard Nixon, I believe in 
     America and in American leadership. I believe we will pass 
     our tests, and in doing so, we can claim the biggest victory 
     of all--we will have secured the future of our great 
     republic, and of peace and freedom, for generations to come.
     

                          ____________________