[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E902-E904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    THE PRICE OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 2, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues a speech delivered last week by Anthony Lake, the 
President's National Security Adviser.
  Mr. Lake states well the importance of American leadership and the 
necessity of the President to have the tools and the resources to be 
able to protect and promote our national interests.
  The upcoming debate over resources for the 150 international affairs 
budget account will help determine whether the United States can 
sustain its world leadership. This account must take its fair share of 
cuts, but those cuts must be carried out with care and with bipartisan 
agreement so that the national interest of the United States will not 
be harmed.
  I urge my colleagues to reflect on Mr. Lake's remarks before the 
National Press Club April 27, 1995. His speech follows:
                        The Price of Leadership

       Let me begin with a simple but alarming fact: The United 
     States could be on the brink of unilateral disarmament.
       Did that get your attention? I hope so, because it is true.
       No, we are not about to junk our jets or scuttle our ships. 
     Our military is strong and ready--and there is a strong 
     bipartisan consensus to keep it so. But we are on the verge 
     of throwing away--or at least damaging--many of the other 
     tools America has used for 50 years to maintain our 
     leadership in the world. Aid to emerging markets, economic 
     support for peace, international peacekeeping, programs to 
     fight terrorism and drug trafficking, foreign assistance: 
     Together with a strong military, these have been key 
     instruments of our foreign policy.
       Presidents since Harry Truman have used these tools to 
     promote American interests--to preserve our security, to 
     expand our prosperity and to advance democracy. Their efforts 
     were supported by Democrats and Republicans--and the broad 
     majority of the American people. Congress consistently 
     provided the needed resources for these tasks. Because of 
     this resolve, coupled with our military might, we prevailed 
     over the long haul in the Cold War, strengthened our security 
     and won unparalleled prosperity for our people.
       Now, I deeply believe our success is in danger. It is under 
     attack by new isolationists from both left and right who 
     would deny our nation those resources. Our policy of 
     engagement in world affairs is under siege--and American 
     leadership is in peril.
       A few of the new isolationists act out of conviction. They 
     argue that the end of the Soviet menace means the serious 
     threats are gone--that we should withdraw behind our borders 
     and stick to concerns at home. Fortress America, they say, 
     can shut out new dangers even though
      some of the new threats facing us--like nuclear 
     proliferation, terrorism, rapid population growth and 
     environmental degradation--know no boundaries.
       But most of the new isolationists do not argue such a 
     position or even answer to the name isolationist. They say 
     they are part of the postwar bipartisan consensus that their 
     goals are its goals--democracy, security, peace and 
     prosperity. But they won't back up their words with deeds.
       These self-proclaimed devotees of democracy would deny aid 
     to struggling democracies. They laud American leadership, but 
     oppose American leadership of coalitions, advocating only 
     unilateral action instead.
       Yes, they praise peace. But then they cut our help to those 
     who take risks for peace. They demand greater prosperity. But 
     they shy away from the hard work of opening markets for 
     American workers and businesses. Under the cover of budget-
     cutting, they threaten to cut the legs out from under 
     America's leadership.
       These are the back-door isolationists--and they are much 
     more numerous and influential than those who argue openly for 
     American retreat. They can read the polls, and they know that 
     the American people want the U.S. to be engaged in the world. 
     Support for American leadership in the world is about as 
     strong as ever--a Chicago Council on Foreign Relations survey 
     shows two-thirds or more want us to remain deeply engaged. So 
     these back-door isolationists and unilateralists cast 
     themselves as the true guardians of American power. But 
     through their actions, they could become the agents of a 
     America's retreat. They champion American leadership, but 
     they want it the one way you can't have it: and that is on 
     the cheap.
       They want America to turn its back on 50 years of success. 
     They are working--whether they know it or not--to destroy 
     part of the foundation for our peace and prosperity, the 
     great legacy of our postwar leaders. Vandenberg, Truman, 
     Marshall, Acheson. These men 
     [[Page E903]] faced their own challenge from isolationists. 
     But they saw the cost of our earlier withdrawal after 
     Versailles was terribly, terribly damaging--saw it in the 
     wreckage of Europe and Asia after World War II and the 
     casualties America suffered liberating those continents. And 
     they understood that investing in a vigorous foreign policy 
     was the only way to prevent another catastrophe.
       They knew the price of leadership. They spent what was 
     necessary to maintain America's security. And they went 
     further, creating the United Nations and the Bretton Woods 
     institutions and covering those bills, pouring Marshall aid 
     into Western Europe to save it from despair and communism and 
     they and their successors in later Administrations developed 
     the new tool of technical assistance--so that democracy and 
     prosperity got a better chance around the world.
       Look at the results: the map is almost covered with 
     democracies, many of them strong allies. Markets that fulfill 
     needs and dreams are expanding. A global economy supports 
     American jobs and prosperity. These are the returns on 50 
     years of American political and economic investment abroad--
     the benefits of 50 years of bipartisan engagement.
       But these achievements are not cut in stone. We will not go 
     on reaping these benefits automatically. Back-door 
     isolationism threatens to propel us in the wrong direction at 
     a real moment of hope--when our engagement can still make a 
     dramatic difference, by securing rather than frittering away 
     our victory in the Cold War.
       We could forfeit that victory because in many places, 
     democracy still needs nurturing. Some market economies have 
     not sunk deep roots. and the post-Cold War world has brought 
     into new focus real and powerful dangers that threaten what 
     we have worked for: aggression by rogue states, international 
     terrorism, economic dislocation. These are new forms of an 
     old conflict--the conflict between freedom and oppression, 
     the conflict between the defenders of the open society and 
     its enemies.
       There is no expiration date on these lessons from five 
     decades: Defeating these threats requires persistent 
     engagement and hands-on policies. Defeating them demands 
     resources. Throwing money at problems won't make them go 
     away--but we also cannot solve problems without money. The 
     measure of American leadership is not only the strength and 
     attraction of our values, but what we bring to the table to 
     solve the hard issues before us. That is why President 
     Clinton has said that he will not let the new isolationism 
     prevail.
       Make no mistake: The American people want their nation to 
     lead. Americans know the world is growing closer; they know 
     our security and prosperity depend on our involvement abroad. 
     And they agree with the President, who has said before and 
     since he took office: ``For America to be strong at home, it 
     must be strong abroad.''
       Plenty of Americans also say they want us to spend less 
     abroad--until they know the real numbers. Most think that we 
     spend 15 percent or more of the federal budget on foreign 
     aid. They think 5 percent would be about right.
       They would be shocked to know that little more than 1 
     percent--$21 billion out of a $1.6 trillion dollar budget--
     goes to foreign policy spending, and less than $16 billion to 
     foreign assistance. That's a lot of money, but not the 
     budget-buster that neo-isolationists pretend. And that is 21 
     percent less in real terms than spent in FY 1986. They would 
     also be surprised to learn that others recognize the reality 
     of necessary resources far better than we. The richest, most 
     powerful nation on Earth--the United States--ranks dead last 
     among 25 industrialized nations in the percentage of GNP 
     devoted to aid.
       These are facts that should be better known. And more of 
     our citizens should know that our foreign policy resources 
     are devoted toward goals that the American people support.
       $6.6 billion a year promotes peace--including our efforts 
     in the Middle East, the help we give U.S. allies to defend 
     themselves, and our contribution to UN peacekeeping missions 
     around the world, such as those on the Golan Heights, the 
     Iraq-Kuwait border and in Cambodia.
       $2.4 billion builds democracy and promotes prosperity--
     helping South Africa, for example, hold free elections and 
     transform itself peacefully.
       $5 billion promotes development--that includes jobs 
     programs in Haiti to increase employment, improve 
     infrastructure and help that nation get back on its feet.
       $1.7 billion provides humanitarian assistance--like caring 
     for refugee children in the former Yugoslavia--because 
     Americans have always wanted their country to alleviate 
     suffering in areas of the most compelling need.
       And the remainder is for the State Department and other 
     agencies that work every day to advance America's interests 
     abroad.
       This is the price of American leadership--and the backdoor 
     isolationists don't want us to pay it. But imagine how the 
     world would look if we did not. Take what I call the George 
     Bailey Test. You remember George--he is the character played 
     by Jimmy Stewart in the Christmas classic ``It's a Wonderful 
     Life.'' In that film, the angel Clarence shows George how 
     Bedford Falls would have fallen apart without him.
       Allow me to play Clarence briefly and take you through a 
     world without American leadership. Imagine:
       If Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan joined the club of 
     declared nuclear weapons states because we couldn't do the 
     deals to denuclearize them.
       If Russian missiles were still pointed at our cities, 
     because we couldn't push to detarget them.
       If thousands of migrants were still trying to sail to our 
     borders, because we had not helped restore democracy in 
     Haiti.
       If nearly 1 million American jobs had not been created over 
     the last three years alone--because we had not promoted U.S. 
     exports.
       If we had to fight a war on the Korean peninsula--the 
     implication of what some critics urged--because we did not 
     confront the threat of a North Korea with nuclear weapons.
       If another quarter of a million people had died in Rwanda 
     because we had not deployed our military and they had not 
     done such a fine job in the refugee camps.
       Or, if we had paid tens of billions of dollars more and 
     suffered more casualties because we insisted on fighting 
     Operation Desert Storm against Iraq by ourselves.
       Imagine that. Each of these efforts cost money and the hard 
     work of building international coalitions. But you and I are 
     safer, better off and enjoy more freedom because America made 
     these investments. If the backdoor isolationists have their 
     way, much of what we have worked for over two generations 
     could be undone.
       Speaker Gingrich recently described what the world might 
     look like if America retreats. He described ``a dark and 
     bloody planet * * * in our absence you end up in Bosnia and 
     Rwanda and Chechnya.'' He added, ``They are the harbingers of 
     a much worse 21st century than anything we've seen in the 
     half century of American leadership.''
       It does not have to be that way. If we continue to invest 
     in democracy, in arms control, in stability in the developing 
     world, in the new markets that bring prosperity, we can 
     assure another half century of American leadership.
       But already, because of decisions in the last few years, we 
     sometimes cannot make even modest contributions to efforts 
     that deserve our support. America is a great nation--but we 
     cannot now find the small sum needed to help support 
     peacekeepers in Liberia, where a million people are at risk 
     from renewed civil war. Or the money to fund adequately UN 
     human rights monitors in Rwanda. We can barely meet our 
     obligations in maintaining sanctions on Serbia. This is no 
     way to follow the heroic achievements of the Cold War. And I 
     can't imagine that this fits any American's vision of world 
     leadership. It doesn't fit mine.
       Nickel and dime policies cost more in the end. Prevention 
     is cheap--and doesn't attract cameras. When the all-seeing 
     eye of television finds real suffering abroad, Americans will 
     want their government to act--and rightly so. Funding a large 
     humanitarian effort after a tragedy or sending in our forces 
     abroad to assist will cost many times the investment in 
     prevention.
       Some costs of short-sighted policies must be paid in our 
     neighborhoods: In 1993, Congress cut by almost one-third our 
     very lean request for funding to combat the flow of narcotics 
     into our country--and that funding has been declining in real 
     terms ever since. As a result, we are scaling back programs 
     to wipe out production of drugs and block their importation, 
     as well as training programs for police, prosecutors and 
     judges in foreign countries. America pays a far higher cost 
     in crime and ruined lives.
       These are some of the constraints we have lived with in the 
     past few years. And now, however, American leadership faces a 
     still more clear and present danger. Budget legislation being 
     prepared in Congress could reduce foreign affairs spending by 
     nearly a quarter--or $4.6 billion. That would mean drastic 
     cuts or the elimination of aid to some states of the former 
     Soviet Union, and into the security assistance programs that 
     help U.S. allies and friends provide for their own defense. 
     it would sharply reduce or eliminate our contributions to 
     international peace operations. It would lame the agencies--
     like OPIC and the Ex-Im Bank--that have played a key role in 
     expanding U.S. exports. It would threaten our non-
     proliferation efforts and the Arms Control and Disarmament 
     Agency. It would eliminate assistance for some programs that 
     save children's lives.
       These cuts would cripple our legacy of leadership. The 
     strength to lead does not fall from heaven. It demands 
     effort. It demands resources.
       A neo-isolationist budget could undercut our strategic 
     interest in democracy in Russia and the former Warsaw Pact. 
     And it would directly affect America's security: We must 
     continue to fund
      the farsighted programs begun by Senators Nunn and Lugar to 
     reduce nuclear arsenals in the former Soviet Union. The 
     $350 million in Nunn-Lugar funds made it possible for 
     Ukraine to dismantle its arsenal and accede to the Non-
     Proliferation Treaty. That made it easier for us to pull 
     back from the Cold War nuclear precipice--and save some 
     $20 billion a year on strategic nuclear forces. That is 
     just one of the more dramatic examples of how our foreign 
     spending literally pays off.
       A neo-isolationist budget could harm our efforts to prevent 
     rogue states and terrorists from building nuclear weapons. We 
     are spending $35 million over three years to employ thousands 
     of weapons scientists in the former Soviet Union on civilian 
     research 
     [[Page E904]] projects. That helps keep them off the nuclear 
     labor market--and form selling their skills to an Iraq or 
     Iran.
       A neo-isolationist budget could nearly end our involvement 
     in UN peace operations around the world--operations that 
     serve our interests. Presidents since Harry Truman have 
     supported them as a matter of common sense. President Bush in 
     particular saw their value: last year nearly 60 percent of 
     our UN peacekeeping bill went to operations begun with his 
     Administration's support. His Secretary of State, James 
     Baker, made a strong defense for these operations when he 
     remarked that ``We spent trillions to win the Cold War and we 
     should be willing to spend millions of dollars to secure the 
     peace.''
       This is burdensharing at its best. UN peace operations.
       Save us from deploying U.S. troops in areas of great 
     importance--for example, Cyprus or the Indian sub-continent.
       They help pick up where our troops left off--for example, 
     along the border of Iraq and Kuwait. In Haiti, UN troops are 
     saving us resources by replacing most of our own withdrawing 
     troops.
       They are building democracy in Namibia, Mozambique and 
     Cambodia--all missions we helped design. In Cambodia, the UN 
     negotiated the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces and then held 
     the country's first democratic election. After the years of 
     the Killing Fields, 90 percent of the electorate turned out 
     to vote--while UN peacekeepers protected them for the Khmer 
     Rouge.
       We would pay much more if we performed even a small number 
     of these missions unilaterally. Instead, the price we pay now 
     in manpower and money is reasonable: Of the 61,000 UN 
     peacekeepers deployed around the world, only some 3,300 are 
     American. We pay the equivalent of half of one percent of our 
     total defense spending for UN peace operations--less than a 
     third of the total UN cost and less than the Europeans pay in 
     proportion to their defense spending. We participate in these 
     operations only after careful consideration of the command 
     arrangements and costs--but we gain immense influence through 
     our ability to lead multinational efforts.
       And a neo-isolationist budget could severely undercut our 
     work for peace. The President has said that ``America stands 
     by those who take risks for peace.'' That is true in Northern 
     Ireland, in South Africa, the Middle East and around the 
     world.
       For the Middle East peace process to continue--and for 
     negotiations in other regions to succeed--we must have the 
     resources to support the risk-takers. We cannot convince the 
     holdouts from the peace process that will stand behind a just 
     and lasting settlement if we back away from our current 
     commitments. That means maintaining aid to Israel, Egypt and 
     the Palestinians and fulfilling our pledge of debt relief to 
     Jordan. In the Middle East our vital security and economic 
     interests are on the line. We must not fold our hands--and 
     leave the game to the opponents of peace--just when we are so 
     close to the verge of winning.
       A neo-isolationist budget could throw away decades of 
     investment in democracy. In the last 15 years, the number of 
     democracies in the world has almost doubled--and USAID 
     provided assistance to most of the newcomers. For example, in 
     Mozambique, a nation emerging from years of strife, AID 
     assistance helped register 6 million out of a possible 8 
     million voters and turn the polling there into a success. 
     Now, when these societies are most fragile, is not the time 
     to cut this lifeline for democracy.
       And a neo-isolationist budget would directly damage our own 
     livelihoods. Our economy depends on new markets for U.S. 
     goods and high-paying jobs for American workers. That is why 
     President Clinton led efforts to expand free trade with the 
     landmark GATT agreement, NAFTA, and the free trade agreements 
     in the Asia-Pacific region and in the Americas. And this 
     Administration has worked harder, I believe, than any other 
     to promote American exports. Imagine, for example, where we 
     would be without the Commerce Department's efforts on this 
     score. Secretary Brown's staff worked with other agencies 
     last year on export deals worth $46 billion for American 
     businesses--deals that support 300,000 U.S. jobs.
       In many cases, we were in a position to close deals because 
     America had been engaged in those countries for years. 
     Consider two statistics. AID programs in some countries have 
     helped increase life expectancy by a decade. And every year, 
     AID's immunization program saves 3 million lives. These are 
     statistics not only of humanitarian hope. They are part of 
     efforts to help create stable societies of consumers who want 
     to buy our goods--not masses of victims in need of relief.
       In addition, our support of the multilateral development 
     banks also helps nations grow and their economics prosper. We 
     contribute $1.8 billion while other nations contribute $7 
     billion--and that capital leverages more than $40 billion in 
     lending. If we stopped our contributions, we would lose our 
     influence. And others might also follow our lead, and that 
     would cripple these important institutions.
       The backdoor isolationists who claim they are saving 
     America's money cannot see beyond the green eyeshades. Our 
     assistance has repaid itself hundreds and hundreds of times 
     over. That was true when Marshall aid resuscitated European 
     markets after the war. And in
      South Korea, which now imports annually U.S. goods worth 
     three times as much as the assistance we provided in 
     nearly 30 years.
       And while we preserve our tradition of assistance, we are 
     reforming its practice. AID has become a laboratory for Vice 
     President Gore's efforts to reinvent government--it is 
     eliminating 27 overseas missions and cut its workforce by 
     1200.
       Now, with the ``New Partnership Initiative,'' we will 
     improve our assistance programs even more--by focusing on the 
     local level. This will enhance the efforts of non-
     governmental organizations and raise the percentage of our 
     aid that is channeled to them to 40 percent--because these 
     organizations are on the ground and more responsive than 
     distant national governments. This puts our resources to 
     better use, helping nations so they can become self-
     sufficient.
       Every one of us in this room knows that winning support for 
     an activist foreign policy has never been easy in America.
       Throughout the history of our Republic, we have never lived 
     in literal isolation. In a world of instant communication and 
     capital flows, we cannot do so now. That is not the issue. 
     Literal isolationism is not an option.
       What is at issue is whether we will have the policies and 
     resources that can shape and support our involvement in ways 
     that benefit our people in their daily lives--whether by 
     opening markets or by preventing conflicts that could embroil 
     us. It is at those times that our government failed to engage 
     in such efforts that our people have paid the greatest 
     price--as in World War II, following a period of 
     irresponsible American retreat.
       The genius of our postwar leaders was to see that 
     technology and American power had changed the world and that 
     we must never again remain aloof. But they had a hard time 
     winning support even with the memories of war still fresh.
       As he put his case forward, President Truman had an uphill 
     struggle. But a foreigner saw that it was America's moment to 
     lead--and told us so. Winston Churchill stirred the nation 
     with his appeal for an engaged foreign policy. Today, we 
     remember his address as the Iron Curtain speech, but 
     Churchill called it ``The Sinews of Peace.'' The phrase plays 
     on a saying of the Romans: ``Money is the sinews of war.'' 
     Churchill's message was that preserving peace--like waging 
     war--demands resources.
       Today, that message rings as true as ever. This is a moment 
     of extraordinary hope for democracy and free markets. But 
     nothing is inevitable. We must remain engaged. We must reach 
     out, not retreat. American leadership in the world is not a 
     luxury: it is a necessity. The price is worth paying. It is 
     the price of keeping the tide of history running our way.
     

                          ____________________