[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 27, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1245-S1246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    TESTIMONY OF RICHARD PERLE BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS 
                               COMMITTEE

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Mr. Richard Perle is currently Resident 
Fellow at American Enterprise Institute and chairman of the Defense 
Policy Board of the Department of Defense, and served as Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the Reagan 
administration. He gave this testimony at a Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee hearing this morning on the subject of ``How do We Promote 
Democratization, Poverty Alleviation, and Human Rights To Build A More 
Secure Future?'' Mr. Perle's testimony was superb, and I commend it to 
all.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement by Richard 
Perle be placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Statement of Richard Perle, Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, 
    Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate

       Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your invitation to participate 
     in the Committee's hearing which poses the question ``How do 
     we promote democratization, poverty alleviation and human 
     rights to build a more secure world?'' These three ideas, 
     poverty, democracy and human rights that are often linked as 
     we try to think our way through the vexing problems of 
     national and international security.
       The phrase ``a more secure world'' is almost certainly 
     prompted by the discovery, on September 11, of how insecure 
     we turned out to be on that day. In any case, hardly any 
     discussion takes place these days that is not somehow related 
     to terrorism and the war against it. For my part, this 
     morning will be no exception.
       Let me say, at the outset, that the idea that poverty is a 
     cause of terrorism, although widely believed and frequently 
     argued, remains essentially unproven. That poverty is not 
     merely a cause, but a ``root cause,'' which implies that it 
     is an essential source of terrorist violence, is an almost 
     certainly false, and even a dangerous idea, often invoked to 
     absolve terrorists of responsibility or mitigate their 
     culpability. It is a liberal conceit which, if heeded, may 
     channel the war against terror into the cul de sac of grand 
     development schemes in the third world and the elevation of 
     do-good/feel-good NGO's to a role they cannot and should not 
     play.
       What we know of the September 11 terrorists suggests they 
     were neither impoverished themselves nor motivated by 
     concerns about the poverty of others. After all, their avowed 
     aim, the destruction of the United States, would, if 
     successful, deal a terrible blow to the growth potential of 
     the world economy. Their devotion to Afghanistan's Taliban 
     regime, which excluded half the Afghan work force from the 
     economy and aimed to keep them illiterate as well as poor, 
     casts conclusive doubt on their interest in alleviating 
     poverty.
       Poverty--or poverty and despair--is the most commonly 
     adumbrated explanation for terrorism abroad--and crime at 
     home. Identifying poverty as a source of conduct invariably 
     confuses the matter. We will never know what went through the 
     mind of Mohammed Atta as he plotted the death of thousands of 
     innocent men, women and children, including a number of 
     Moslems. We do know that he lived in relative comfort as did 
     most, perhaps all, of the 19 terrorists--15 of them from 
     affluent Saudi Arabia.
       If we accept poverty as an explanation we will stop 
     searching for a true, and useful, explanation. We may not 
     notice the poisonous extremist doctrine propagated, often 
     with Saudi oil money, in mosques and religious institutions 
     around the world.
       If we attribute terrorism to poverty, we may fail to demand 
     that President Mubarak of Egypt silence the sermons, from 
     mosques throughout Egypt, preaching hatred of the United 
     States. As you authorize $2 billion a year for Egypt, please 
     remember that these same clerics are employees of the 
     Egyptian government. It is not a stretch to say that U.S. 
     taxpayer dollars are helping to pay for the most inflammatory 
     anti-American ranting.
       So when you hear about poverty as the root cause of 
     terrorism, I urge you to examine the manipulation of young 
     Muslim men sent on suicidal missions by wealthy fanatics, 
     like Osama bin Laden, whose motives are religious and 
     ideological in nature and have nothing to do with poverty or 
     privation.
       Mr. Chairman, this hearing is about building a more secure 
     future; and I know it will come as no surprise if I argue 
     that doing that in the near term will require an effective 
     military establishment to take the war on terrorism to the 
     terrorists, to fight them over there because they are well on 
     the way to achieving their murderous objectives when we are 
     forced to fight them over here. For once those who wish to 
     destroy Americans gain entry to the United States and exploit 
     the institutions of our open society, the likelihood that we 
     will stop them is greatly diminished.
       This is why President Bush was right to declare on 
     September 11 that ``We will make no distinction between the 
     terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor 
     them.'' This was not the policy of the last Democratic 
     administration or the Republican one before it. It is not a 
     policy universally applauded by our allies. But it is a right 
     and bold and courageous policy and the only policy that has a 
     reasonable prospect of protecting the American people from 
     further terrorist acts.
       Dealing effectively with the states that support or condone 
     terrorism against us (or even remain indifferent to it) is 
     the only way to deprive terrorists of the sanctuary from 
     which they operate, whether that sanctuary is in Afghanistan 
     or North Korea or Iran or Iraq or elsewhere. The regimes 
     in control of these ``rogue'' states--a term used widely 
     before the last administration substituted the flaccid 
     term ``states of concern''--pose an immediate threat to 
     the United States. The first priority of American policy 
     must be to transform or destroy rogue regimes.
       And while some states will observe the destruction of the 
     Taliban regime in Afghanistan and decide to end their support 
     for terrorism rather than risk a similar fate, others will 
     not.
       It is with respect to those regimes that persist in 
     supporting and harboring terrorists that the question of the 
     role of democratization and human rights is particularly 
     salient. And foremost among these regimes is Saddam Hussein's 
     Iraq.
       The transformation of Iraq from a brutal dictatorship, in 
     which human rights are unknown, to a democratic state 
     protecting the rights of individuals would not only make the 
     world more secure, it would bring immediate benefits to all 
     the people of Iraq (except the small number of corrupt 
     officials who surround Saddam Hussein).
       I believe that this is well understood in the Congress, 
     which has repeatedly called on the administration to support 
     the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella group made up of 
     organizations opposed to Saddam's dictatorship. The INC is 
     pledged to institute democratic political institutions, 
     protect human rights and renounce weapons of mass 
     destruction. As we think through the best way to change the 
     regime in Iraq, it is precisely the proponents of democracy 
     who deserve our support, not the disaffected officer who 
     simply wishes to substitute his dictatorship for that of 
     Saddam Hussein.
       I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Congress, which has been 
     well ahead of the executive

[[Page S1246]]

     branch in recognizing this, will succeed in persuading this 
     administration, although it failed to persuade the last one, 
     that our objective in removing Saddam's murderous regime must 
     be its replacement by democratic forces in Iraq and the way 
     to do that is work with the Iraqi National Congress.
       Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that democracies that 
     respect human rights, and especially the right to speak and 
     publish and organize freely, are far less likely to make war 
     or countenance terrorism than dictatorships in which power is 
     concentrated in the hands of a few men whose control of the 
     instruments of war and violence is unopposed. As a general 
     rule, democracies do not initiate wars or undertake campaigns 
     of terror. Indeed, democracies are generally loath to build 
     the instruments of war, to finance large military budgets or 
     keep large numbers of their citizens in military 
     establishments. Nations that embrace fundamental human rights 
     will not be found planning the destruction of innocent 
     civilians. I can't think of a single example of a democracy 
     planning acts of terror like those of September 11.
       We could discuss at length why democratic political 
     institutions and a belief in the rights of individuals 
     militate against war and terror and violence. But the more 
     difficult questions have to do with how effectively we oppose 
     those regimes that are not democratic and deny their citizens 
     those fundamental human rights, the exercise of which 
     constitutes a major restraint on the use of force and 
     violence.
       Here the issue is frequently one of whether we ``engage'' 
     them in the hope that our engagement will lead to reform and 
     liberalization, or whether we oppose and isolate them. I know 
     of no general prescription. Each case, it seems to me, must 
     be treated individually because no two cases are alike. Take 
     the three cases of the ``axis of evil.''
       In the case of Iraq, I believe engagement is pointless. 
     Saddam Hussein is a murderous thug and it makes no more sense 
     to think of engaging his regime than it would a mafia family.
       In the case of Iran, I doubt that the goals of 
     democratization and human rights would be advanced by 
     engaging the current regime in Teheran. There is sufficient 
     disaffection with the mullahs, impressive in its breadth and 
     depth, to commend continued isolation--and patience. The 
     spontaneous demonstrations of sympathy with the United States 
     are brave and moving. We owe those who have marched in 
     sympathy with us the support that comes from refusing to 
     collaborate with the regime in power. The people of Iran may 
     well throw off the tyrannical and ineffective dictatorship 
     that oppresses them. We should encourage them and give them 
     time.
       In the case of North Korea end the policy of bribing them. 
     Such a policy invites blackmail, by them or others who 
     observe their manipulation of us--and it certainly moves them 
     no closer to democracy or respect for human rights. We must 
     watch them closely and remain ready to move against any 
     installation that may place weapons of mass destruction or 
     long-range delivery within their reach.
       Mr. Chairman, I have only one recommendation for the 
     Committee and it is this: to support enthusiastically, and 
     specifically with substantially larger budgets, the National 
     Endowment for Democracy. On a shoestring it has been a source 
     of innovative, creative programs for the building of 
     democratic institutions, often working in places where 
     democracy and respect for human rights is only a distant 
     dream. It may well be the most cost-effective program in the 
     entire arsenal of weapons in the war against terror and for a 
     more secure world. The Endowment, and even more the 
     organizations that benefit from the Endowment's support, need 
     and deserve all the help we can give them.

     

                          ____________________