[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE WORLD

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, April 4, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, many Americans remember Bruce Laingen as 
the able diplomat who acted with superb professionalism while being 
held hostage in Iran more than 15 years ago. Now Ambassador Laingen 
continues to serve American interests as president of the American 
Academy of Diplomacy. In response to the foreign policy debate now 
underway, the academy has adopted a very brief but important statement 
on America's role in the world, and I commend it to my colleagues. Much 
has been written and said recently about what I consider a false 
debate: Whether we should pursue our foreign policy unilaterally, or 
through multilateral institutions. Obviously, we will want to do both, 
depending on the circumstances. I ask that the academy's statement be 
printed in the Record.
                         America's Role Abroad

       Most Americans accept the need for the United States to 
     remain engaged in the world. And most will agree that clearly 
     defined national interest should guide that engagement. But 
     many are finding it difficult in this complex post-cold war 
     world to reach consensus on what engagement means and where 
     the national interest lies.
       In the current debate over these issues we sense a tendency 
     among some to equate a pragmatic pursuit of vital interests 
     with unilateralism--arguing that international engagement 
     must be a one-way street and that our interests are best 
     served when the US dictates the terms or acts alone whenever 
     it chooses. This appeal of unilateralism doubtless arises 
     from varied impulses, one of which could be the 
     disappointments we have encountered from the shortcomings of 
     the United Nations.
       But in a world of instant communications, globally linked 
     financial markets, easy migration of devastating diseases and 
     impoverished peoples, threats to the earth's oceans and 
     atmosphere, terrorist networks operating without heed to 
     frontiers, it is inconceivable that the United States could 
     go it alone successfully. When nuclear weapons can be 
     delivered by missile, ship, or in the baggage of a terrorist 
     the necessity for active international collaboration is self-
     evident.
       The United States can and will do some things alone. Recent 
     negotiations with China over protection of cultural and 
     artistic properties and their direct relevance for jobs at 
     home serve the point. But similar success with more intricate 
     and strategic issues--extending the Non-Proliferation Treaty 
     against nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction--
     plainly demands engagement with others. It is illusory to 
     think that the nation's needs are so limited that they can be 
     served without a high degree of planning and effort with 
     other nations, including at the UN--the example of the Gulf 
     War surely not forgotten.
       No country has so large a stake in the effective 
     functioning of such institutions as the IMF and World Bank 
     and in the evolution of the new World Trade Organization. 
     Development of export markets and investment opportunities is 
     vital to our general prosperity. But these require a 
     framework of international rules and cooperative action--as 
     for that matter does coping with volatility in international 
     currencies and any threat to the stability of our financial 
     system. In today's world we have no monopoly on new 
     technologies, nor on competition in the burgeoning global 
     marketplace. The fact is that to a greater degree than ever 
     before the economic well-being of virtually every American is 
     affected by what happens outside our borders.
       Finally, it should be clear that unilateralism today, like 
     isolationism in the past, would risk nullifying American 
     leadership in the world. With the cold war at an end, our 
     allies and friends are no longer automatically responsive to 
     our judgments on security concerns. Nor are we able or ready 
     unilaterally to devote massive financial resources to the 
     solution of international economic issues. Effective 
     leadership, therefore, cannot be dictated by the United 
     States; it depends on recognition by others that we share 
     security and economic interests in common.
       To protect and advance our own national interests as we go 
     forward will require careful articulation of those interests, 
     their alignment where possible with those of others, and a 
     commitment to lead cooperative efforts. To do otherwise would 
     invite forms of international anarchy both dangerous and 
     costly to our own national interests.
     

                          ____________________