[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15074-S15077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise to day to draw your attention to 
an informative and thought-provoking foreign policy lecture that our 
colleague and good friend, Mike DeWine, recently gave in Oxford, Ohio, 
at his alma mater--Miami University. His address was a part of Miami 
University's distinguished Hammond Lecture Series, which first began 
nearly 38 years ago in January 1962. Our esteemed former colleague from 
Arizona, Barry Goldwater, presented the first lecture in the Series, 
which, incidently, Senator DeWine attended during his first visit to 
the Miami campus.
  I draw your attention to Senator DeWine's address because it focuses 
on a fundamental question that the American people, the President, and 
we here in Congress must consider. That question is this: ``What role 
will the United States play in the world, as we enter the 21st Century? 
In posing this critical question, Senator DeWine discusses several of 
the challenges and concerns that our country faces in forming a foreign 
policy doctrine for the future. I encourage you to take some time to 
read this reasoned, well-grounded piece, and consider the questions it 
raises.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the 1999 
Hammond Lecture, given by Senator Mike DeWine, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

           ``America's Role in the World in the 21st Century

       Dr. Shriver, thank you very much. It is always a daunting 
     task to follow Dr. Shriver. And, for that kind introduction, 
     I thank you. President Garland and members of the Hammond 
     Lecture Series Committee--thank you for inviting me to be 
     with all of you here tonight.
       Dr. Shriver, my wife Fran, and I started at Miami 
     University on the same day. Dr. Shriver started as President 
     in the Fall of 1965, and Fran and I started as freshmen that 
     same day. We all entered Miami together--Dr. Shriver just 
     stayed here a little longer!
       Fran and I did spend four very productive years here at 
     Miami. We left with two degrees and two children--two 
     children, by the way, who graduated from Miami and have 
     married Miami graduates. Of our eight children, three--so 
     far--also have graduated from Miami.
       I am particularly honored to be giving the Dr. W.A. Hammond 
     Lecture this year. As Dr. Shriver said, Dr. Hammond lived in 
     our home county--in Greene County. He was a chemist, an 
     industrialist, a community leader--a person who cared 
     passionately about our history, about government, about 
     politics, and about America.
       His legacy is not just this lecture series. I see his 
     legacy every time that I'm back home. I see it in the long 
     stretch of land that lies along the Little Miami River--still 
     undeveloped and still beautiful. That's just one of his 
     legacies. I also see it when I go to Xenia and see the 
     Galloway log cabin. He was instrumental in preserving it with 
     his own efforts, his own money and his own ingenuity. So, he 
     has left a legacy for us in our home county and a legacy for 
     our state.
       As a high school freshman, I came on the Miami University 
     Campus to attend the first W.A. Hammond Lecture. The speaker 
     was then United States Senator Barry Goldwater. It was 
     January 1962. It was a rather interesting day for me, because 
     it was actually not only the first time I saw a United States 
     Senator, but it was also the first time I had seen this 
     wonderful campus.
       One of the things that I recall from that speech by Senator 
     Goldwater is that I

[[Page S15075]]

     thought the question and answer period was a lot more 
     interesting than the speech. I think it's probably typical of 
     most speeches. The speech was fine, but I thought the 
     questions and answers were particularly interesting. So, I 
     hope tonight to spend a significant period of time with you 
     on comment and questions on whatever topics you want to 
     address
       As we approach a new millennium, as well as the next 
     presidential election, I think it is appropriate for us to 
     discuss where the United States is going as we enter the next 
     century. What kind of a country do we expect our children, 
     our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren to live in?
       When John F. Kennedy was running for President in 1960, he 
     said that the job of a president is to lay before the 
     American people the unfinished business of the country. 
     That's still the job of the President--a job, I think also, 
     of Senators and other leaders.
       So, I'd like to talk tonight about that unfinished business 
     of this country and particularly the unfinished business of 
     this generation and of the next generation.
       What are the big challenges and other important things that 
     we have to deal with?
       We have a crisis in education, particularly in our inner 
     cities, and particularly in Appalachia.
       We must solve--especially in Ohio--the school funding 
     disparity problem and question.
       We must, as a country, attract the smartest, the best, and 
     the brightest of our students to the profession of 
     education--the profession of teaching.
       And, quite candidly, our schools of education must continue 
     to aggressively reexamine how they prepare our teachers for 
     the future.
       We must do a better job of attracting and encouraging 
     professionals and people with real world experiences to make 
     teaching a second career.
       The Congress, the President, and the American people must--
     within the next several years--deal with the Medicare 
     question and deal with the Social Security question. For all 
     of the talk by both the President and the Congress--Democrats 
     and Republicans--about ``saving Social Security'' and 
     ``saving'' this surplus for Social Security, the reality is 
     that Social Security and Medicare cannot be ``saved'' without 
     fundamental reform. All of the surpluses in the world cannot 
     hold back the demographic tidal wave of the baby boom 
     generation as it approaches retirement. Reform--reform, not 
     budget surpluses, will save Social Security.
       There are certainly other issues that this generation must 
     tackle: health care, medical research, and a subject near and 
     dear to my heart--the crisis in our country's foster care 
     system.
       However, our topic tonight is foreign affairs and what the 
     U.S. role in the world should be in the 21st Century. So, I 
     will now take a stab at that.
       When Senator Goldwater addressed Miami in 1961, our nation 
     was in the midst of the Cold War, and certainly no typical 
     American family could go through any day without being 
     touched by that larger, global struggle. It was a time of 
     bomb shelters and of school children crawling under their 
     desks. Young American men and women were sent to all corners 
     of the globe--to places they barely could pronounce, spell, 
     or even find on a map--all in defense against communist 
     expansion. We raced the Soviets to the Moon--and won. The 
     Olympic games were seen as epic struggles to reaffirm the 
     strength of our system.
       Senator Goldwater devoted the first Hammond Lecture to a 
     discussion of the ideological struggle between democracy and 
     communism. And, as he said on that January night nearly 
     thirty-eight years ago: ``We are fighting an ideology that is 
     dedicated to destroying us. We can win this fight against 
     Communism without firing a shot or dropping a bomb.''
       Perhaps, to his own surprise, Senator Goldwater lived to 
     see the fulfillment of that prophecy. Ten years ago this 
     week, the most dramatic symbol of the Cold War--the Berlin 
     Wall--fell, and most significantly, not because of some 
     advancing army. It fell because its foundation--communism--
     could no longer sustain itself.
       In retrospect, the fall of the Soviet Union was neither a 
     complete defeat for totalitarianism, nor really a complete 
     victory for democracy.
       The end of the Cold War also did not end the nuclear 
     threat.
       The world remains today a dangerous and very uncertain 
     place. Although we are experiencing a period of peace and 
     prosperity really not seem in our country since the 1920s, 
     this ``peace'' has not been tranquil. American air and ground 
     forces have been dispatched to places such as Saudi Arabia, 
     Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Serbia. We've engineered military 
     actions against Iraq and strikes against terrorists in the 
     Sudan and the hills of Afghanistan.
       We stand on the brink of a nuclear arms and missile race in 
     South and East Asia and the Middle East. And, nationalism has 
     raised the prospect of war in several regions--from Central 
     Europe to the Asian Subcontinent. And, nations in our own 
     hemisphere face threats that could undermine--if not 
     overwhelm--the progress of our movement toward democracy that 
     we successfully achieved in this hemisphere over a decade 
     ago. In sum, we have moved from a Cold War to a Hot Peace.
       The challenges of global stability did not cease with the 
     end of the Cold War. Peace must be protected, enforced, and 
     advanced with the same vigilance and determination we 
     demonstrated to arrive at this point in our history. As Henry 
     Kissinger observed more than ten years ago: ``History knows 
     no resting places; what does not advance must sooner or later 
     decline.''
       Since the beginning of the so-called American century, when 
     a Canton, Ohio, resident named William McKinley was re-
     elected to the presidency, our nation's chief executives have 
     faced the challenge of defining America's role in shaping and 
     responding to world events.
       The eight Presidents who have led our nation during the 
     Cold War were presented with the opportunity to pronounce, or 
     perhaps characterize, the nature of American foreign policy. 
     During that time, we went from a policy of containment to a 
     policy of detente, and from there to a policy of political 
     containment and military buildup. Now, one may agree or 
     disagree with each of these policies, but there is no dispute 
     that each of these Presidents--from Harry Truman to George 
     Bush--led with a clear vision, or doctrine, if you will, that 
     guided U.S. foreign policy and influenced the shaping of 
     multinational affairs during their terms of office.
       Unfortunately, our current Administration never seized the 
     opportunity to articulate a clear, thoughtful doctrine, 
     outlining America's role and place in a post-Cold War world.
       Sadly, history will not record nor remember the Clinton 
     doctrine.
       Instead of a foreign policy geared toward anticipating and 
     shaping events abroad, we have watched events abroad shape 
     our foreign policy.
       The future and security of our nation must be--absolutely 
     must be--the dominant theme of the next presidential 
     election. Each candidate has to answer one fundamental 
     question: What should be America's role in this post-Cold War 
     world?
       The next President--working with Congress, with the 
     American people, and with our global partners--must develop a 
     new bipartisan foreign policy doctrine--a McCain Doctrine, or 
     a Bradley Doctrine, or a Gore Doctrine, or a Hatch Doctrine--
     a doctrine for this country and for our people--a doctrine to 
     define our role as we move into the next century.
       To be sure, there is not one right answer to what role we 
     should play. These are very, very difficult questions. The 
     world is a complicated place. There are no easy, simple 
     solutions to any of the conflicts and challenges our world 
     faces. But, one thing is certain: Protecting our national 
     security and promoting our interests abroad will depend on 
     the kind of vision, the kind of leadership, and the kind of 
     foreign policy doctrine that our next President brings to 
     this task.
       As we enter the 21st Century, our next President must--in a 
     bi-partisan manner--engage Congress and the American people 
     in how best to define and how best to articulate a principled 
     and practical approach to U.S. engagements abroad. This means 
     including the American people in an open, foreign policy 
     dialogue. It means getting their support of U.S. involvements 
     in global struggles. And, finally, it means creating a 
     foreign policy doctrine that is neither a Republican nor a 
     Democrat plan, but is rather ``the American plan.''
       In so doing, I believe that there are certain fundamental 
     principles that should serve as the basis for defining 
     America's role in foreign affairs. So, tonight, I'd like to 
     spend a few minutes sharing some of my thoughts about what 
     those principles are and how they can affect our U.S. role in 
     the 21st Century world. I do not mean for this to be an 
     exhaustive list, but I believe that our foreign policy must 
     include, at the very least, these principles.
       And so, I offer them in the spirit of discussion and 
     dialogue--in the spirit of what I expect of the next 
     President. That means that I expect the next President to 
     lead this discussion with the American people, with an 
     understanding that the choices are tough, and many times the 
     choices we are faced with are not good ones. And, while it is 
     tough, unless we start the dialogue--unless we start the 
     discussion--unless we frame it with the sense of where do we 
     go as a country in the post-Cold War era, we are never going 
     to end up where we want to be and where we need to be.


                            principle no. 1

       The first, and perhaps most obvious, principle is that the 
     United States must lead. We have to lead in foreign affairs. 
     Our country must be an active, engaged player in the world, 
     striving for solutions that look beyond the short-term. Our 
     credibility in the world community depends on it.
       Without a clear vision and direction for U.S. foreign 
     policy, our nation will continue on an aimless path. After 
     more than forty years of a bipolar-driven foreign policy, the 
     end of the Cold War put this country at a fundamental foreign 
     policy crossroads. Seven years later, tragically, we are 
     still at that crossroads.
       A lack of solid U.S. leadership in the area of foreign 
     affairs has not come without cost. Our military has been 
     deployed around the world to its breaking point. Our 
     credibility in the world community certainly has declined. 
     And, the world is even more dangerous and unstable now than 
     during the Cold War.
       I've noted already some examples of exactly how dangerous 
     the world is today. What's troubling is how little U.S. 
     involvement has done to reduce the dangers that we

[[Page S15076]]

     face. Despite billions in U.S. assistance, Russia's 
     government and economy teeter on the verge of collapse under 
     the weight of rampant crime and rampant corruption. North 
     Korea has become the single largest recipient of U.S. aid in 
     East Asia, but continues to develop nuclear technology and 
     missiles capable of reaching most of the Western United 
     States, and, I might add, also continues to starve its own 
     people. Despite our stern warnings, China and Russia continue 
     to assist rogue nations like Iran and Iraq in their obsessive 
     quests to acquire weapons of mass destruction. All these 
     issues, together, present challenges that require strategic 
     thinking and bi-partisan U.S. leadership.
       We, as a nation, must take a lead in exporting our 
     democratic values to our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere 
     and to other areas of the world. When the world looks for 
     leadership, it can look to only one place--and that place is 
     the United States. History has put us where we are. If the 
     United States does not lead, there is no one else who can 
     lead--and frankly, no one else who will lead.


                            principle no. 2

       The second key principle that I believe should guide our 
     foreign policy in the next century is this: The peace and 
     stability of our own hemisphere must be one of our top 
     priorities. You see, the problems of our hemispheric 
     neighbors are our problems, as well. We, as a nation, stand 
     to lose or gain, depending on the economic health and 
     security of our own neighbors. In other words, a strong, and 
     free, and prosperous hemisphere means a strong, and free, and 
     prosperous United States.
       Let's look at the example of our neighbors to the south in 
     Latin America. When I was first elected to the U.S. House of 
     Representatives in 1982, Soviet and Cuban influence in Latin 
     America was the dominant issue. Today, the communists have 
     been replaced as a power by the drug dealers. The perverse 
     presence of drug trafficking throughout the region represents 
     a very significant and very real concern--one that puts at 
     risk the stability of our hemisphere.
       The disintegraing situation in democractic Colombia really 
     illustrates this.
       No democracy in our hemisphere today faces a greater threat 
     to its own survival than does Colombia. That democratically 
     elected government is embroiled in a bloody, complex, three 
     decade-long civil war against two well-financed, heavily-
     armed guerrilla insurgency groups--the Revolutionary Armed 
     Forces of Colombia (otherwise known as the FARC) and the 
     National Liberation Army (or ELN). Also involved is a 
     competing band of about 5,000 rutheless paramilitary 
     operatives.
       The real source of violence and instability in Colombia, 
     though, is the drug traffickers. According to the Colombian 
     Finance Ministry, the Colombian drug trade brings in to 
     Colombia up to $5 billion a year, making it Colombia's top 
     export. To maintain a profitable industry, a significant sum 
     of these drug revenues goes to hire the guerrillas and, 
     increasingly, the paramilitary groups.
       Just to give you an idea about how the lives of people in 
     Cincinnati, Ohio, and Bogota, Colombia, are closely linked, 
     consider this: When a drug user buys cocaine on a street 
     corner in Cincinnati, or Cleveland, or Chicago, that person 
     is funding violent anti-democratic activity that threatens 
     the lives of innocent Colombians. I have walked through the 
     poppy fields in Colombia with the President of Colombia and 
     have seen--first-hand--how the drug trade is fueling 
     the violence and instability in that country and in the 
     region.
       The United States has a clear economic interest in the 
     future stability of Colombia. Last year's two-way legal trade 
     between the United States and Colombia was more than $11 
     billion. In fact, the United States is Colombia's number-one 
     trading partner, and Colombia is the fifth largest market for 
     U.S. exports in the region.
       I have met with Colombian President Pastrana both in 
     Washington and in Bogota to discuss how our two countries can 
     work together to resolve this deteriorating situation. One 
     way is to invest more in Colombia's drug fighting capability 
     and improve economic opportunities. I have introduced 
     legislation to provide that additional investment. But, this 
     legislation also strengthens the capability of the Colombian 
     government to enforce the law--the rule of law--and provides 
     assistance for human rights training and alternative crop and 
     economic development--two things that are absolutely 
     essential. With this bill, we are investing in making 
     Colombia a stronger, more stable democracy, and a stronger, 
     capable partner in building a hemisphere free from the 
     violence and the decaying influence of drug traffickers and 
     human rights abusers.
       Stopping the drug trade, though, in Colombia and Latin 
     America is only one way that we can preserve democracy. We 
     must move forward to integrate the entire hemisphere 
     economically. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
     is the first and most significant step we've taken in that 
     direction. Recently, the Senate took a positive step toward 
     hemispheric trade liberalization by passing legislation that 
     would extend the benefits of NAFTA to the countries in 
     Central American and the Caribbean.
       We have to do even more to pursue a hemispheric free trade 
     initiative. Trade integration will occur in this hemisphere, 
     whether or not we are a part of it. It is in our national 
     interest to bring more Latin American countries into 
     bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with the United 
     States. If we fail, others will fill the void. Right now, 
     Europe, Asia, and Canada are consolidating their economic 
     base throughout Latin America. They certainly are not waiting 
     for the United States. They'd prefer us standing on the 
     sidelines. We must not let this happen. The longer we wait, 
     the more we stand to lose.


                            principle no. 3

       The third principle that I will offer for discussion 
     tonight is this: Our foreign policy must reinforce and 
     promote our own core values of democracy, free markets, human 
     rights, and the rule of law. I am not at all ashamed to say 
     that our most important export to the international community 
     is our ideals and our ideas. In this country, we are 
     committed to democracy and human rights. We cherish open 
     elections, and we cherish our freedom of speech. We strive to 
     promote free trade and fair trade, so that everyone in our 
     nation has a chance to prosper. We fiercely protect our 
     freedoms, as we should.
       I believe passionately that every person in the world 
     should have the same opportunity to enjoy these basic 
     democratic values. We have, over the last twenty years, made 
     significant progress in promoting our democratic values 
     abroad. Let's again look at the example of Latin America.
       In 1981, 16 of the 33 countries in our hemisphere were 
     ruled by authoritarian regimes--either of the left or of the 
     right. Today, all but one of those nations--Cuba--have 
     democratically elected heads of government. They're not 
     perfect. Maybe they don't comply exactly with how we see 
     democracy, but they're all moving in the right direction.
       The hard, day-to-day work of democracy, however, comes 
     after the elections. It is by no means an easy task to create 
     a democratic society that fosters freedom or expression, 
     where votes matter and human rights are respected. Democracy-
     building is a slow, often cumbersome process that evolves 
     over time.
       Key to sustaining democracy and nurturing prosperity in 
     Latin America, or in any developing democracy, requires a 
     commitment to the rule of law. That means providing effective 
     responses to current threats, including corruption, criminal 
     activity, drug trafficking and violence. Police and impartial 
     judiciaries must be in place to fight such threats.
       If no one enforces the law, no one will uphold the law. 
     And, if that is the case, there will be no jobs, and there 
     will be no economic growth, because there will be no foreign 
     or domestic investment.
       I have traveled to a number of these countries and what you 
     see in country after country is a struggle for democracy, as 
     the people move from the election process to the tough work 
     of democracy. This is the daunting challenge they face.
       The daunting challenge, quite candidly, is that, many 
     times, there is not rule of law after election day. People 
     and companies won't investment in these countries. They are 
     afraid to invest--they are afraid to invest, because they 
     don't know if their assets will be protected or if they will 
     be stolen. And, if they are stolen, they don't know if there 
     will be any redress. That kind of uncertainty does not 
     encourage investment.
       People need to be able to look to the courts, and to the 
     prosecutors, and to the judicial system. When you help that 
     judicial system, you help investment, and you ultimately help 
     create jobs and help people come out of poverty.
       The same thing is true for farmers--campesinos--in 
     Guatemala, or Honduras, or Nicaragua, or throughout this 
     hemisphere. If they do not believe that they own land--that 
     they can control their land--they won't invest in their land. 
     They won't put anything back into the soil, as farmers must, 
     if they are to prosper.
       So, again, it goes back to the judicial system--to the rule 
     of law--and to the courts. One of the greatest things our 
     country has the ability to do is send abroad our judicial and 
     rule of law expertise. We've been doing that. And, while I 
     think we have been doing a pretty good job, there is still 
     more we can do.
       Economies cannot expand and democracies cannot thrive 
     without law enforcement officers and judges committed to law 
     and order. The challenge we face today is that a number of 
     Latin American countries do not have the kind of judiciaries 
     needed to make the rule of law work.
       Citizens should not fear the police. Law enforcement should 
     be trained to protect the people and to provide stability and 
     tranquility. Many of the emerging democracies have a long, 
     long history of police abusing human rights and of the 
     military abusing human rights. That has to change. And, it 
     can change through our assistance and through our expertise.
       We already are investing time and money to export our 
     principles of law enforcement to train police in Central 
     America through the International Criminal Investigative 
     Training Assistance Program, known as ICITAP. This is an 
     important program, but it's only half of the law enforcement 
     equation. A well-trained police force means little or nothing 
     if corrupt and incompetent prosecutors and judges cannot 
     prosecute and sentence criminals.
       It means nothing if a certain elite class of the 
     population--economic, political, ethnic--is above the rule of 
     law and operates in the country with impunity. That has to 
     change in these countries, as well. And, that we can 
     accomplish.

[[Page S15077]]

       The U.S. government already has worked to help strengthen 
     some aspects of the judiciary systems in Latin America and in 
     other places in the world such as Bosnia, but we have a great 
     deal farther to go. If we fail to focus on this matter, we 
     will miss a great opportunity to build on the foundation we 
     worked so hard to establish. Even worse, we put the very 
     foundation, itself, at risk of collapse. One of the great 
     wonders of a free society is that all of its core values--
     democracy, free markets, rule of law, and human rights--
     really reinforce the others. To strengthen one strengthens 
     them all.


                               conclusion

       As we enter the 21st Century and contemplate our nation's 
     role in the world, we must think about past mistakes, learn 
     from them, and move forward toward a more balanced, 
     principled, bi-partisan foreign policy. In doing so, we 
     should consider these principles, which I have outlined 
     tonight:
       1. The United States must lead in foreign affairs;
       2. The peace and stability of our own hemisphere must be 
     one of our top priorities; and
       3. Our foreign policy must reinforce and promote our own 
     core values of democracy, free markets, human rights, and 
     rule of law.
       In the global struggle for peace and stability, there is no 
     substitute for strong, effective U.S. leadership. Leadership 
     means foresight. It means thinking ahead. It also means 
     credibility.
       This week, ten years ago, the Berlin Wall fell, marking the 
     beginning of the end of the Cold War. During this time of 
     remembrance for this anniversary and as we pause, as Dr. 
     Shriver so appropriately pointed out, to pay honor to our 
     veterans, the following words. I think, have significance:
       ``Ladies and gentleman, the United States stands at this 
     time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment 
     for the American democracy. For with this primacy in power is 
     also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future. As 
     you look around you, you must feel not only the sense of duty 
     done, but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall below the 
     level of achievement.''
       Now these words, while they would be a fitting tribute to 
     the resilience of our nation during the Cold War, actually 
     were spoken by Winston Churchill more than fifty years ago at 
     Westminister College in Fulton, Missouri. Although known for 
     its reference to ``the iron curtain,'' Mr. Churchill's now 
     famous speech was actually titled, ``The Sinews of Peace.'' 
     In his typically less than subtle manner, Mr. Churchill was 
     suggesting that times of peace require the same strength of 
     purpose as times of war. He certainly was right.
       Winston Churchill saw, before many did, what lay ahead for 
     the world. He saw a difficult, uncertain, and volatile peace. 
     He did advise his American allies to pursue an overall 
     strategic concept and outline the methods and resources 
     needed to enforce this strategy. He was calling on America to 
     define its role in a post-World War II world. President Harry 
     Truman, fortunately for us, had the vision and the resolve to 
     accept this challenge and to redefine America's role in 
     foreign affairs.
       No doubt, Mr. Churchill would offer similar advice today. 
     All of us here do have an ``awe-inspiring accountability to 
     the future.'' The challenges are many, but I believe they can 
     be met. Doing so requires one significant first step: We must 
     develop, as a country, a doctrine that will guide and define 
     our role in the world. If our next President does that--if 
     our next President follows the example of John Kennedy, 
     Dwight Eisenhower, or Harry Truman, we will have a doctrine 
     that will take us into the next century. And, we will have a 
     doctrine that will be consistent with our principles, with 
     our values, and with our vision of the types of world in 
     which we want our children, our grandchildren, and our great-
     grandchildren to grow up.

                          ____________________