[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15071-S15072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL

  Mr. GRAMS. At the Brandenburg Gate, West Berlin, on June 12, 1987, 
President Reagan issued a stunning challenge: ``General Secretary 
Gorbachev, if you seek peace if you seek prosperity for the Soviet 
Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this 
gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this 
wall!'' And less than three years later, the wall crumbled, along with 
the threat of communism as a viable, universalist alternative to 
democracy.
  I remember reporting on the fall of the Berlin Wall as a newscaster. 
I remember those first tentative attempts to climb over it, and the 
rush of revelers that followed when no shots were fired. Remember, the 
wall was built to keep people in, and freedom out. The guard posts in 
the East were facing eastward, not toward West Berlin. It is incredible 
that the tenth anniversary of this seminal event passed almost without 
comment. For it marked the end of the Soviet Empire, and foreshadowed 
the end of the Soviet Union itself. The global correlation of forces, 
as the Soviets used to say, aligned with freedom, not oppression.
  The Wall crumbled because President Reagan was committed to achieving 
peace through strength. The Reagan Doctrine asserted the need to 
confront and rollback communism by aiding national liberation movements 
in Afghanistan, Angola, Grenada, Cambodia, and Nicaragua. He proved 
that once countries were in the Soviet camp, they need not remain there 
forever. He realized that our national prestige is reinforced and 
enhanced when we operate with a coherent, concise, and understandable 
foreign policy. And by doing so, he succeeded in inspiring and 
supporting dissidents behind the Iron Curtain who eroded the mortar of 
that Wall.
  In contrast, the Clinton Administration has reacted to foreign policy 
crises, but has failed to a develop a foreign policy. The 
Administration has lurched from managing one crisis to another, but 
never articulated the national interest in accordance with a core 
philosophy. Instead of consistently safeguarding and promoting our 
values abroad, it has acted on an ad hoc basis according to the needs 
of the moment, confusing our allies and emboldening rogue nations. 
Serbia was emboldened to conduct ethnic cleansing in Kosovo; North 
Korea was emboldened to develop nuclear weapons; Saddam Hussein was 
emboldened to strengthen his position in northern Iraq.
  What is the Clinton Doctrine? We have been told about a ``do-ability 
doctrine'' whereby the United States acts ``in the places where our 
addition of action will, in fact, be the critical difference.'' 
However, that alone cannot be the criteria for U.S. intervention. Under 
that formulation we could be expected to intervene anywhere in the 
world. And as Secretary Albright stated as our Ambassador to the U.N. 
``we are not the world's policeman, nor are we running a charity or a 
fire department.''
  However, as a practical matter, the combination of a ``do-ability 
doctrine'' with so-called ``assertive multilateralism''--places the 
United States in the very position which Secretary Albright derided. It 
has resulted in both the abdication of our responsibilities and the 
misguided projection of our power. Instead of applying the Reagan 
Doctrine by equipping and training the Bosnian forces over our allies' 
objections, the Administration subcontracted our role of arming the 
Bosnians to a terrorist regime in Iran, unnecessarily endangering the 
lives of U.S. troops. Instead of arming the Bosnians, we supported our 
allies standing by in U.N. blue helmets, watching unarmed civilians be 
massacred in Srebrenica. In contrast, the attempt at nation building in 
Somalia, and the refusal to provide equipment requested on the ground 
because it would send the wrong signal, sacrificed the lives of 18 
brave soldiers without regard to whether such action advanced our vital 
concerns. When this Administration acts according to the exigencies of 
the moment instead of according to an underlying philosophy, the 
country lurches from paralysis to ``mission creep'' without regard to 
the national interest.
  Recently, there has been discussion of the possibility of reworking 
our entire military force structure--which is presently based on the 
capacity to fight two simultaneous major regional conflicts--in order 
to enable us to commit US troops to an ever-growing number of 
multilateral ``peacekeeping'' missions. I am concerned that we may 
sacrifice our vital national security interests in order to be able to 
participate in peripheral endeavors. We should not be shortsighted. We 
should not lose sight of what we must do in

[[Page S15072]]

order to accomplish what we can do. Our military should be used to 
protect our national security interests, not provide peacekeeping in 
areas without strategic significance.
  That kind of distinction will never happen under the Clinton 
Administration. President Clinton does not have the clarity of purpose 
of Ronald Reagan. No walls will be torn down. There is no Clinton 
Doctrine. There is only a half-hearted attempt to justify random acts 
under an artificial rubric and a series of slogans. And our country is 
the worse for it. We should note the fall of the Berlin Wall symbolizes 
more than just a victory of liberty over totalitarianism. It shows that 
armed with a core philosophy, a coherent doctrine, and a lot of 
courage, there is no limit to what we can accomplish.

                          ____________________