[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FUTURE OF U.S. DIPLOMACY

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 30, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, Richard Gardner, our 
distinguished ambassador to Spain, gave a thoughtful speech entitled, 
``Who Needs Ambassadors? Challenges to American Diplomacy Today.'' I 
believe these remarks are very relevant to our ongoing deliberations on 
H.R. 1561, which would authorize spending levels for the State 
Department and other foreign policy agencies. Ambassador Gardner points 
out what happens to American foreign policy when our Ambassadors do not 
have the resources to conduct our business overseas. He rightly points 
out that ``what our ambassadors and embassies do is one of our 
country's best kept secrets.'' I commend his remarks to my colleagues.

     Who Needs Ambassadors? Challenges to American Diplomacy Today


  Excerpts from an address by richard n. gardner, u.s. ambassador to 
 Spain, to the annual banquet of the american society of international 
                          law, march 29, 1996

       I * * * come to you as a deeply troubled Ambassador. I am 
     troubled by the lack of understanding in our country today 
     about our foreign policy priorities and the vital role of our 
     embassies in implementing them. I sometimes think that what 
     our ambassadors and embassies do is one of our country's best 
     kept secrets.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       [A]t the height of the Cold War, it did not take a genius 
     to understand the need for strong U.S. leadership in the 
     world and for effective ambassadors and embassies in support 
     of that leadership.
       Today, however, there is no single unifying threat to help 
     justify and define a world role for the United States. As a 
     result, we are witnessing devastating reductions in the State 
     Department budget which covers the cost of our Embassies 
     overseas.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The constructive international engagement we all believe in 
     will continue to be at risk until we all do a better job of 
     explaining its financial requirements to the American people 
     and the Congress.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       [I]t is difficult to encapsulate in one sentence or one 
     paragraph a definition of American foreign policy that has 
     global application.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       In his address to Freedom House last October, President 
     Clinton spelled out for Americans why a strong U.S. 
     leadership role in the world is intimately related to the 
     quality of their daily lives:
       ``The once bright line between domestic and foreign policy 
     is blurring. If I could do anything to change the speech 
     patterns of those of us in public life, I would almost like 
     to stop hearing people talk about foreign policy and domestic 
     policy, and instead start discussing economic policy, 
     security policy, environmental policy--you name it.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Ambassadors today need to perform multiple roles. They 
     should be the ``eyes and ears'' of the President and 
     Secretary of State; advocates of our country's foreign policy 
     in the upper reaches of the host government; resourceful 
     negotiators in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. They 
     need to build personal relationships of mutual trust with key 
     overseas decision-makers in government and the private 
     sector. They should also radiate American values as 
     intellectual, educational and cultural emissaries, 
     communicating what our country stands for to interest groups 
     and intellectual leaders as well as to the public at large.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The question that remains to be answered is whether the 
     American people and the Congress are willing to provide the 
     financial resources to make all this activity possible.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Congressional spending cuts have now brought the 
     international affairs account down to about $17 billion 
     annually--about 1 percent of our total budget. Taking 
     inflation into account, this $17 billion is nearly a 50 
     percent reduction in real terms from the level of a decade 
     ago. For Fiscal Year 1997, the Congressional leadership 
     proposes a cut to $15.7 billion. Its 7-year plan to balance 
     the budget would bring international affairs spending down to 
     $12.5 billion a year by 2002.
       Keep in mind that about $5 billion of the 150 account goes 
     to Israel and Egypt * * * So under the Congressional balance 
     budget scenario only $7.5 billion would be left four years 
     from now for all of our other international spending.
       These actual and prospective cuts in our international 
     affairs account are devastating. Among other things, they 
     mean:
       That we cannot pay our legally owing dues to the United 
     Nations system, thus severely undermining the world 
     organization's work for peace and compromising our efforts 
     for UN reform.
       That we cannot pay our fair share of voluntary 
     contributions to UN agencies and international financial 
     institutions to assist the world's poor and promote free 
     markets, economic growth, environmental protection and 
     population stabilization;
       That we must drastically cut back the reach of the Voice of 
     America and the size of our Fulbright and International 
     Visitor programs, all of them important vehicles for 
     influencing foreign opinion about the United States;
       That we will have insufficient funds to respond to aid 
     requirements in Bosnia, Haiti, the Middle East, the former 
     Communist countries and in any new crises where our national 
     interests are at stake;
       That we will have fewer and smaller offices to respond to 
     the 2 million requests we receive each year for assistance to 
     Americans overseas and to safeguard our borders through the 
     visa process.
       And that we will be unable to maintain a world class 
     diplomatic establishment as the delivery vehicle for our 
     foreign policy.
       The money that congress makes available to maintain the 
     State Department and our overseas embassies and consulates is 
     now down to about $2.5 billion a year. As the international 
     affairs account continues to go down, we face the prospect of 
     further cuts. The budget crunch has been exacerbated by the 
     need to find money to pay for our new embassies in the newly 
     independent countries of the former Soviet Union.
       In our major European embassies, we have already reduced 
     State Department positions by 25 percent since Fiscal Year 
     1995. We have been told to prepare for cuts of 40 percent or 
     more from the 1995 base over the next two or three years.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       I have to tell you that cuts of this magnitude will gravely 
     undermine our ability to influence foreign governments and 
     will severely diminish our leadership role in world affairs. 
     They will also have detrimental consequences for our 
     intelligence capabilities since embassy reporting in the 
     critical overt component of U.S. intelligence collection. In 
     expressing these concerns I believe I am representing the 
     views of the overwhelming majority of our career and non-
     career ambassadors.
       Having no effective constituency, spending on international 
     affairs is taking a particularly severe hit within the 
     civilian discretionary account and with it the money needed 
     for our diplomatic establishment.
       The failure to build solid international relationships and 
     treat the causes of conflict today will surely mean costly 
     military interventions tomorrow.

                          ____________________