[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 116 (Thursday, September 9, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF FOREIGN POLICY

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 9, 1999

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to you the 
article written by Mr. Frank Calzon, entitled ``Foreign Policy: Words 
as powerful as actions.'' Mr. Calzon is the executive director of the 
Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C. and is a tireless fighter 
for democratic causes. I encourage my colleagues to benefit from his 
excellent article.

              Foreign Policy: Words as Powerful as Actions

                           (By Frank Calzon)

       ``Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will 
     never hurt you'' is fine advice for the young, but it will 
     never cut mustard in foreign policy. History is full of 
     tragedies that could have been prevented, but for the 
     thoughtlessness of a policy pronouncement.
       Children's rhymes were the last thing on the mind of 
     Secretary of State Dean Acheson when, preoccupied with 
     Stalin's expansion into Central Europe, he spoke at the 
     National Press Club in Washington on Jan. 12, 1950. In the 
     speech, which had been approved by the White House, Acheson 
     outlined America's ``defense perimeter'' in the Pacific, 
     clearly leaving out the Korean peninsula. Five months later, 
     Kim II Sung's armies, confident that Washington wouldn't 
     intervene, invaded South Korea. Thus began the Korean War, a 
     conflict in which thousands of Americans lost their lives.
       Acheson's blunder came to mind recently while reading a 
     July 7 article in The New York Times in which an unidentified 
     Clinton-administration official talked about ``a conscious 
     decision in this administration to do what need to be done.'' 
     The Times ominously explained that to mean ``American 
     officials say they are now determined to go forward [with 
     their commitment to relaxing U.S. sanctions against Fidel 
     Castro's regime] even if Mr. Castro responds by cracking down 
     on dissent.''
       Ironically, the statement coincides with a reappraisal of 
     Canada's longstanding policy of ``constructive engagement'' 
     with Havana. Despite tourism, trade and foreign aid, Castro 
     remains oblivious to Canada's pleadings on behalf of human 
     rights. Canada's most influential media have called for a 
     tougher stand vis a vis Castro, and a not-so-subtle message 
     to that effect was delivered recently. The new Cuban 
     ambassador presented credentials in Ottawa in an elegant room 
     in which almost all of the chairs set up for official guests 
     were empty.
       The new U.S. policy--assuming the report is accurate--is at 
     odds with Americans humanitarian impulse. It could have 
     serious consequences for U.S. policy in the Americas because 
     President Clinton's hemispheric policy is predicated on 
     support for democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
       One can only wonder what the consequences would have been 
     had the United States told Moscow that, regardless of its 
     mistreatment of human-rights dissidents, Washington 
     cooperation would remain on track. Or what might have been 
     Poland's fate had the United States signaled to Gen. Wojciech 
     Jaruzelski that it was all right for him to crack down on 
     dissents. Instead, to its credit, the Reagan administration 
     imposed trade sanctions on Warsaw when it tried to crack down 
     on Solidarity.
       Years earlier Jimmy Carter had electrified the world with 
     his call for worldwide respect for human rights. Due both to 
     its source and its content, the idea that greater repression 
     in Cuba will not impact U.S. policy undermines Clinton's 
     publicly stated views and Secretary of State Madeline 
     Albright's repeated and principled efforts to mobilize 
     international support for the victims of Castro's repression.
       Like Kim II Sung almost 50 years ago, Castro will interpret 
     the statements attributed to the Clinton administration as a 
     green light for whatever steps he takes. Also, foreign 
     governments that would rather not confront Castro's rhetoric 
     (at the United Nations in Geneva, Cuban diplomats labeled 
     those concerned about human rights in Cuba ``lackeys'' of the 
     United States) now will find it even easier to turn to deaf 
     ear to the Cuban people's cries for help.
       Is it really in America's national interest to broadcast 
     such fickleness to our enemies, repeating Acheson's error? It 
     certainly is not. However, this is exactly what is occurring 
     when senior Clinton-administration officials tell Castro that 
     U.S. policy will not be affected by a crackdown on Cuba's 
     courageous and beleaguered opposition.
       How can the Clinton administration claim that it cares 
     about the Cuban people's fate while erasing whatever 
     remaining uncertainty Castro may have about America's 
     intentions? How many ways are there to spell disaster? 
     Several weeks have passed, but it is not too late for the 
     President to order an investigation and reaffirm his 
     commitment to supporting the Cuban people's aspirations for 
     freedom.

     

                          ____________________