[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 15 (Friday, February 15, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E179-E180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        THE OTHER HALF OF THE JOB: FINANCING OUR FOREIGN POLICY

                                 ______
                                 

                               TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 14, 2002

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in a recent hearing with Secretary of State 
Colin Powell, I raised concerns about how we are financing the War on 
Terrorism. While there is no doubt that there is a need for increased 
defense spending, I worry that necessary resources are not being made 
available to finance our diplomatic and development programs overseas. 
As this war proceeds, it will be our responsibility to establish stable 
democracies to fill the vacuum left by fallen regimes. It is therefore 
necessary to properly fund related assistance programs.
  Dr. Michael McFaul wrote an article entitled ``The Other Half of the 
Job'' in the February fifth edition of the Washington Post that deals 
with this very issue. He contends that if we intend to urge governments 
to promote liberty and freedom, it is our responsibility to provide 
assistance to those nations to establish stable democracies, and 
thereby create friendly allied states. He cites the examples of Germany 
and Japan. Just sixty years ago they were the greatest security threat 
to this nation, and today, after sustained support, they are among our 
strongest allies.
  Dr. McFaul is an expert in the area of international relations and 
deserves recognition for his work in promoting world peace. He is a 
professor of political science at Stanford University and a senior 
associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His 
outstanding scholarship has raised awareness and given light to this, 
among other important issues. His insights are valuable and worthy of 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read Dr. McFaul's thought 
provoking article and I request that it be included in the Record.

           [From the Washington Post, Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2002]

                       The Other Half of the Job

                          (By Michael McFaul)

       The United States is at war. President Bush therefore has 
     correctly asked for Congress to approve additional resources 
     to fight this war. The new sums requested--$48 billion for 
     next year alone--are appropriately large. Bush and his 
     administration have astutely defined this new campaign as a 
     battle for civilization itself, and have wisely cautioned 
     that the battle lines will be multifaceted and untraditional.
       So why are the new supplemental funds earmarked to fight 
     this new war largely conventional and single-faceted--i.e., 
     money for the armed forces? Without question, the Department 
     of Defense needs and deserves new resources to conduct the 
     next phase of the war on terrorism. The Department of Defense 
     may even need $48 billion for next year.
       What is disturbing about President Bush's new budget, 
     though, is how little creative attention or new resources 
     have been devoted to the other means for winning the war on 
     terrorism. The Bush budget is building greater American 
     capacity to destroy bad states, but it adds hardly any new 
     capacity to construct new good states.
       We should have learned the importance of following state 
     destruction with state construction, since the 20th century 
     offers up

[[Page E180]]

     both positive and negative lessons. Many have commented that 
     our current war is new and unprecedented, but it is not. 
     Throughout the 20th century, the central purpose of American 
     power was to defend against and, when possible, destroy 
     tyranny.
       American presidents have been at their best when they have 
     embraced the mission of defending liberty at home and 
     spreading liberty abroad. This was the task during World War 
     II. This was the objective (or should have been the mission) 
     during the Cold War. It must be our mission again.
       The process of defeating the enemies of liberty is twofold: 
     Crush their regimes or the regimes that harbor them and then 
     build new democratic, pro-Western regimes in the vacuum.
       In the first half of the last century, imperial Japan and 
     fascist Germany constituted the greatest threats to American 
     national security. The destruction of these dictatorships, 
     followed by the imposition of democratic regimes in Germany 
     and Japan, helped make these two countries American allies.
       In the second half of the last century, Soviet communism 
     and its supporters represented the greatest threat to 
     American national security. The collapse of Communist 
     autocracies in Eastern Europe and then the Soviet Union 
     greatly improved American national security. The emergence of 
     democracies in east Central Europe a decade ago and the fall 
     of dictators in southeast Europe more recently have radically 
     improved the European security climate, and therefore U.S. 
     national security interests. Democratic consolidation in 
     Russia, still an unfinished project, is the best antidote to 
     a return of U.S.-Russian rivalry.
       The Cold War, however, also offers sad lessons of what can 
     happen when the United States carries out state destruction 
     of anti-Western, autocratic regimes without following through 
     with state construction of pro-Western, democratic regimes. 
     President Reagan rightly understood that the United States 
     had an interest in overthrowing Communist regimes around the 
     world. The Reagan doctrine channeled major resources to this 
     aim and achieved some successes, including most notably in 
     Afghanistan. State construction there, however, did not 
     follow state destruction. The consequences were tragic for 
     American national security.
       So why is the Bush administration not devoting greater 
     capacity for state construction in parallel to increasing 
     resources for state destruction? Bush's pledge of $297 
     million for Afghanistan for next year is commendable, but 
     this one-time earmark does not constitute a serious, 
     comprehensive strategy for state construction in Afghanistan 
     or the rest of the despotic world that currently threatens 
     the United States.
       On the contrary, in the same year that the Department of 
     Defense is receiving an extra $48 billion, many U.S. aid 
     agencies will suffer budget cuts. Moreover, the experience of 
     the past decade of assistance in the post-Communist world 
     shows that aid works best in democratic regimes. Yet budgets 
     for democracy assistance in South Asia and the Middle East 
     are still minuscule. Strikingly, the theme of democracy 
     promotion was absent in President Bush's otherwise brilliant 
     State of the Union speech.
       It is absolutely vital that the new regime in Afghanistan 
     succeed. Afghanistan is our new West Germany. The new regime 
     there must stand as a positive example to the rest of the 
     region of how rejection of tyranny and alliance with the West 
     can translate into democratic governance and economic growth. 
     And the United States must demonstrate to the rest of the 
     Muslim world that we take state construction--democratic 
     construction--as seriously as we do state destruction. Beyond 
     Afghanistan, the Bush administration must develop additional, 
     non-military tools for fighting the new war. To succeed, the 
     United States will need its full arsenal of political, 
     diplomatic, economic and military weapons. Bush's statements 
     suggest that he understands this imperative. Bush's budget, 
     however, suggests a divide between rhetoric and policy.

     

                          ____________________