[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 18 (Monday, March 2, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DEFINING THE NATIONAL INTEREST

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, March 2, 1998

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' 
attention my monthly newsletter on foreign affairs from February 1998 
entitled Defining the National Interest.
  The newsletter follows:

                     Defining the National Interest

       The basic test for judging any foreign policy decision is 
     easy to state but hard to apply: Does it serve the American 
     national interest?
       During the Cold War, the guiding principle of U.S. foreign 
     policy was clear: the containment of communism. There was 
     broad agreement that the Soviet Union represented a dire 
     threat to American security and values. Every foreign policy 
     decision was viewed through this prism, and defining the 
     national interest was not difficult.
       Today, defining the national interest is much harder. The 
     Administration has described expanding and strengthening the 
     world's community of market-based democracies as the goal of 
     American foreign policy. But this concept is abstract. It 
     gives only broad guidance to policy makers who have to make 
     the tough decisions.
       Every government in the world wants to involve the United 
     States in solving its problems. Yet even the world's only 
     superpower cannot solve every problem or address every 
     tragedy--the American people will never support such a role. 
     The President and his advisers must decide which issues 
     matter for the United States, and which do not. A decision to 
     invest time and resources--or to risk the lives of young 
     Americans--must be based on a hard analysis of the U.S. 
     national interest.
       The national interest has several components:
       First, to preserve the territorial integrity of the United 
     States and the safety and security of its people. Peace 
     requires a strong U.S. deterrent and a balance of power.
       Second, to sustain U.S. economic prosperity. To continue to 
     improve the standard of living and the quality of life for 
     all Americans, the U.S. must open markets and advance the 
     principles of the free market. We also need to be able to 
     react to financial crises, whether they are in Latin America 
     or Asia, in order to minimize their domestic impact.
       Third, to promote democratic values. U.S. support for 
     freedom, individual rights, the rule of law and democratic 
     institutions around the world helps secure peace and 
     stability among states, and advance human rights within 
     states.
       Fourth, to promote basic human rights--such as freedom from 
     starvation and genocide, religious freedom, and freedom of 
     political expression. The importance of human rights should 
     not be underestimated. Rights abuses not only violate core 
     U.S. values and ideals--they undermine stability in nations 
     and regions where other U.S. interests are at stake.
       Finally, to protect the health and welfare of the American 
     people. The free flow of people and products around the globe 
     means that Americans are no longer isolated from dangers 
     elsewhere, including international crime, drugs, terrorism, 
     and communicable diseases.
       No other country in the world has such broadly defined 
     national interests as the United States. Our interests are at 
     stake in every corner of the world and every sector of human 
     life. On every continent the U.S. has multiple political, 
     economic, strategic and humanitarian interests. When 
     confronted with the many threats to the national interest--as 
     the United States is confronted each day--we must prioritize 
     those interests or be overwhelmed by them.
       Priorities. Not all interests fall into the same 
     categories. Some U.S. interests are vital. Vital means that 
     you are prepared to go to war, if necessary, to defend them. 
     Vital interests include protecting the people and territory 
     of the United States from nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) 
     or conventional military attack. They include preventing any 
     hostile power from dominating Europe, the Middle East, Asia 
     or the high seas--as we did in World War II and the Cold War. 
     Some interests are vital, even if force cannot protect them, 
     such as preventing a catastrophic collapse of the world 
     economy and financial system.
       The United States also has several very important 
     interests: to prevent the proliferation of NBC weapons and 
     missiles anywhere; to maintain strong ties with our neighbors 
     in the hemisphere and our allies in Europe and Asia; to help 
     resolve regional conflicts; to advance stability in Africa; 
     to promote democracy and the rule of law; to foster U.S. 
     prosperity through free markets and an open trading system; 
     and to promote respect for human rights.
       The United States has other important interests, which we 
     cannot disregard without jeopardizing our long-term security. 
     These include several transnational issues: fighting 
     international drugs, crime and terrorism; reducing disease 
     and global poverty; protecting the environment; and 
     addressing population growth.
       Resources. Setting priorities among these competing 
     interests guides resource allocation. We need to determine 
     what resources--both human and material--we are prepared to 
     risk or expend to protect the American national interest. 
     Meeting all of the challenges to U.S. foreign policy requires 
     difficult decisions in allocating scarce resources. We simply 
     cannot do it all.
       Judgment. When considering the question of the national 
     interest, there is no substitute for sound judgment and 
     political leadership. Americans often have competing views 
     about which interests should dominate, and what level of 
     resources to commit. Presidential leadership in sorting out 
     these questions is critical.
       The President conducts American foreign policy. He has the 
     principal burden of persuading the Congress and the American 
     people about the threat to the national interest, and 
     convincing the public that his chosen course of action will 
     protect those interests at an acceptable cost.
       Conclusion. Focusing on the question of the U.S. national 
     interest will not--and cannot--resolve all differences over 
     foreign policy. Reasonable people will disagree about 
     priorities and resources. But asking the right questions will 
     help us arrive at better answers.

     

                          ____________________