[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 78 (Thursday, June 13, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3544-H3547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GEPHARDT SPEECH TO WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS AND
THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS DESERVES CAREFUL STUDY BY HOUSE
MEMBERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to bring to the attention of my
colleagues a speech made last week by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), the House of Representatives Democratic leader. He offered
ideas for constructing a strong, bipartisan, long-term approach to the
war on terrorism in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars and to the Council on Foreign Relations. As we have come
to know and expect, our distinguished leader offered outstanding
insights and thoughtful proposals for dealing with the urgent issues of
our Nation's foreign policy.
Leader Gephardt outlined proposals to build consensus for military
transformation so we can win the war on terrorism. He offered a 21st
Century foreign policy to promote prosperity, democracy and universal
education for stability and opportunity in the developing world. He
proposed greater citizen involvement in all aspects of our public
diplomacy. Leader Gephardt urged the administration to do more to
strengthen international alliances that will help fight terrorism, and
he called for the much faster development of a tough new homeland
defense strategy.
Mr. Speaker, Leader Gephardt wisely stated in his speech that the
goal of America's foreign policy in the 21st century should be ``to
promote the universal values of freedom, fairness and opportunity,
which has never been more in America's self-interest. We should seek to
lead a community of nations that are law-abiding, prosperous and
democratic. Such a world would leave fewer places for terrorists to
hide and more places for citizens across the globe to pursue life,
liberty, and happiness.''
The three qualities of this foreign policy, as Leader Gephardt points
out, should be economic development, democracy, and universal
education. These qualities are not only intimately interconnected and
self-reinforcing, but they are critical to the achievement of long-term
American security and prosperity and, more importantly, they are
pragmatic, achievable, and cost-effective.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out an additional observation that
Leader Gephardt made in his speech. He could not have been more correct
when he said that ``America must lead'' and that ``leadership is not a
synonym for unilateralism.'' The recent U.S. foreign policy moves
towards international agreements, multilateral institutions, and
transnational issues such as the environment pose a threat to our
ability to prosecute the war on terrorism effectively by putting at
risk the assistance and cooperation of other nations, including some of
our closest allies. America must remain engaged and America must lead.
Leader Gephardt's ideas deserve the thoughtful consideration of all
of us as we grapple with America's course in foreign policy. I am proud
to enter a copy of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt)'s speech
into the Record, and I urge all of my colleagues to give it the
thorough reading and study it deserves.
Building a New Long-Term Strategy for American Leadership and Security
Today, we are gathering almost nine months after enemies of
America killed more than 3,000 of our fellow citizens.
It has been eight months since America sent troops into
battle in Afghanistan and five months since dialogue in the
Middle East broke down and that region sank into destructive
waves of suicide bombings.
Today, events continue to move swiftly, with momentous
consequences for our nation and for the people of the world.
I believe now is the appropriate time to reflect on how we
have gotten here, but much more importantly, where we must
go.
Too often, issues of national security are considered
separately--they are seen as fragmented, distinct disputes,
such as: Must we prepare for two major simultaneous wars?
What should be our diplomatic approach to the Middle East? Or
will Americans back peacekeeping in some foreign land?
But it is also evident, when we take a step back, that
these issues are profoundly interwinded, and that we must
approach them from the single perspective of ensuring
America's security.
The world in which we live is very different from the Cold
War era, when a bipartisan group of ``wise men'' shaped our
thinking. I do not need to talk very much about the trends
that have remade our times--we live with them every day.
Globalization has made events in faraway places more
relevant to use that ever before.
Information technology and the latest scientific revolution
have changed the way we live and produced astonishing gains
in productivity and knowledge.
And, of course, the crumbling of the Soviet empire has
fundamentally changed the strategic face of the globe.
With the advent of each of these trends, the world has
become closer, moved faster, and grown more interconnected.
Great wars have been followed by uneasy peace as America
has struggled to create international arrangements to
preserve harmony. After each war, America has debated how
engaged it should be in world affairs; and when the peace has
been broken, America has chosen to engage the world ever more
closely.
I urge this Administration to build on this tradition of
engagement, not turn away from it. Now is the time to take
the long view of this challenge. We are often too focused on
issues at the margins of the status quo. This is not going to
be a short struggle or an easy one. In addition to all we are
doing now, we will need to do more. We will need to make our
military stronger, our homeland safer, and build alliances
abroad to serve American interests.
We are engaged in a global conflict. We face a competition
between governance and terror, between the great majority who
benefit from order, and the small few who thrive on chaos.
The question today is whether a collection of nation
states--committed to human values of democracy and freedom,
the rule of law and tolerance--can succeed in a struggle
against the ideology of fanaticism and extremism, an ideology
that holds us to be the political, economic, and cultural
enemy and states its desire to destroy America.
While we now have terrorist organizations on the run, we
must acknowledge that in some ways they are succeeding in
creating division. Enemies of America still flourish, sowing
seeds of hatred for this country and reaping violence. Some
terrorist groups are small in number, limited in visibility
and short on supplies. Others find harbor in failed states or
enjoy support from sympathetic regimes, utilizing
sophisticated technology to hatch their murderous plots. This
is a tough, complicated foe, one that should not be
oversimplified or underestimated.
Over the past half-century, America's bipartisan policy of
containment served to hem in and deter a singular, comparable
adversary. Today, with smaller, less discernible enemies, we
need a strategy that seeks not to wall off threatening parts
of the world, but to engage potentially hostile regions.
We need to be prepared to deliver the most forceful
military responses to provocation, but also to expand
opportunities for peace and prosperity. With deference to
George Kennan, the seminal work he did at the Council on
Foreign Relations, and the institute here that bears his
name, I believe such a policy could be called one of
commitment. With determination as our guide, we must move
forward with a unified approach:
A commitment to constantly updating the most effective
military ever;
A commitment to being engaged diplomatically all over the
world;
A commitment to making our homeland secure and involving
our citizens and our leaders in the issues of the world.
President Bush was right Saturday to say we are fighting a
new war and will have to be ready to strike when necessary,
not just deter. But on the home front, we are moving too
slowly to develop a homeland defense plan that is tough
enough for this new war.
Let us be clear about the stakes in this struggle. As in
all wars, the question is not just who shall govern, but also
one of life itself. More than 3,000 people died on Sept.
11th. And American lives remain at risk so long as we are in
this conflict.
modernization of the military
Of course, no one makes a greater sacrifice, or a more
important contribution to our security, than our nation's
military. The first challenge of a new policy is to
strengthen our Armed Forces for the future.
We know our military must go through a transformation--and
we need our legislative branch to be working on this
transformation along with the executive and uniformed
services.
Each of the branches is already reaching for the goal of
modernization. In the future, our Army will be lighter and
faster; our Navy will deploy smaller, stealthier ships;
the Marines will move faster and with more firepower; and
the Air Force will revolutionize its planes and weapons
systems.
The results will be positive. As Bill Owens, the former
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has suggested, electronics
and computers should dramatically improve our forces without
huge cost increases.
But to set goals and achieve them are two different things.
While some experts foresee transformations that could take up
to 30 years, much of what we must accomplish has to happen in
15 or less. So we need to focus our energies and our
resources.
My suggestions for military reform come with two
qualifiers.
First, I am deeply committed to not politicizing our
military and strategic decision-
[[Page H3545]]
making. We achieve nothing if a good idea for our Department
of Defense becomes a Republican or Democratic idea and gets
bogged down in politics.
Good ideas are too crucial to our nation to let them
founder on partisanship. We need to change the way we think--
not just update our weapons systems--and we need to look for
good ideas everywhere.
Second, I hope that the suggestions I make today form the
basis for further discussions. A comprehensive plan will come
from the contributions of many. While I have a broad view of
the direction I hope we will take, the complete picture can
only be sketched out here.
I believe we can strengthen our military through bipartisan
efforts in three key areas: supporting the people who make up
our Armed Forces; improving our technology and weaponry; and
modernizing our systems for logistics and supply.
First, we must work together to make sure we have a
sufficient number of troops, and that they receive better
compensation, and get the superb training they need.
Under President Reagan, the Armed Forces reached a peak of
about 2.2 million. Much has changed since that time: we
currently have 1.4 million soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines who are severely strained as they bravely carry out a
growing number of missions. General Ralston, our commander of
NATO and U.S. troops in Europe, recently told Congress that
he does not have the forces to accomplish what we are asking
of him.
Rep. Ike Skelton has been a strong leader on this issue in
the House Armed Services Committee, and I will work with him
to add troops in 2003.
I recently read a disturbing article in the New York Times
that described the situation of a young Sergeant, Eric Vega,
who is with the 459th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base.
Since he was activated on Sept. 22nd, Sergeant Vega has been
on leave from his job with the Virginia State Troopers.
Because of his service this year, he has lost about $25,000
in overtime pay, is working 14 to 18 hour days, and can't see
very much of his 11 month old twins.
I was heartened to read that he still planned to ren-
enlist. But it is wrong that we are putting men and women
like him through that. It is enough of a sacrifice to risk
your life for your country; you should not have to also
sacrifice your financial future.
Sens. McCain and Bayh, Reps. Ford and Osborne have
introduced bills to let young Americans sign an ``18-18-18
plan,'' which is one smart option for bringing more people
into the service. Under this plan, which builds on work
already begun in the Armed Services Committees, a person
could serve 18 months in active duty, 18 months in the
reserves and receive an $18,000 bonus, which can be used
for educational purposes at the end of his or her service.
We need to keep investigating more innovative ways to help
people serve.
We also need to work together to reform our training
system.
When I was in the Air National Guard, back in my younger
days, I enjoyed the fierce rivalry my Air Force buddies felt
towards the Army. But we had little contact with the Army.
You trained and worked with those from your own branch. When
a mission was called for, you were supposed to be ready. When
it was an Army job, then it was their turn.
Wars, of course, don't work like that anymore. And in
recent years, our service branches have worked well together
to develop joint operational capabilities. But we can do
better.
I suggest we create and expand military academies that
would train field officers from all the services in new forms
of strategies and tactics. Such schools could teach joint
operations more comprehensively--intermingling air, land,
seas and space for the battles ahead.
It would be a useful step in breaking down barriers between
the services, and in creating integrated tactical units.
If President Bush is interested, I think this is one area
where we could easily work together and make quick progress.
And I would be willing to go much further and support
programs to recruit and retain even more of the best students
to prepare our military for the tasks ahead.
The second challenge in military modernization is the
acquisition of smart weapons and technologies that provide
better knowledge of the battlefield.
Under the President's current budget proposal, we will be
spending $470 billion a year on defense by 2007, making it
seem that we will be able to buy every weapon imaginable.
But even at that huge amount, we need to spend wisely.
One of the best things we can do is transform our military
by linking new technologies with existing ones.
I have been heartened, for example, to hear about the
success of the GPS guidance kits that can be attached to so-
called ``dumb bombs'' dropped by pilot-less aircraft or B-
52's.
This relatively simple innovation makes bombs more accurate
and is less expensive than designing whole new weapons
systems.
And where we can design entirely new weapons that
revolutionize our capabilities on the battlefield, we must
move ahead at full pace. One of the great successes in
Afghanistan has been our ability to integrate data, an area
where we must continue to invest.
Pilot-less surveillance aircraft, like the Air Force's
Predator, helped us get real time data on the enemy's
movements, saving pilots and allowing commanders to respond
immediately.
The acquisition of these planes may seem costly--the 2003
budget calls for $150 million dollars more--but pilot-less
planes will cost much less than an F-22. The quicker we
can move to a dominating position with them worldwide, the
better off we will be.
The third area where we could obtain improved performance,
and make our budgets more efficient, is logistics and
procurement.
Experts generally refer to the amount of resources devoted
to support functions as opposed to war fighting capability as
the `tail to tooth' ratio--and while the ratio was once 50/50
it is now 70% tail and only 30% tooth. The financial planning
process at the Pentagon has not been overhauled since it was
implemented almost 40 years ago by Robert McNamara. And a
1997 DOD report found that of the US military's $64 billion
inventory of supplies, over $20 billion was obsolete.
We need to update our logistics and supply systems.
I want to thank the Business Executives for National
Security--in particular the Chairman of its Executive
Committee, Dr. Sidney Harman--for the insightful and non-
partisan work they have done to highlight these issues. Dr.
Harman and his group found that by adopting the best business
practices for the military, the Pentagon could save $20-$30
billion annually without sacrificing quality.
In 2000, it took an average of 30 days to receive a part
through the defense logistics system. In contrast, the
Caterpillar company can ship a part anywhere in the world
within 48 hours, and usually in less than a day. We also know
that the buying process takes too long. I was struck to read
that development of the Crusader artillery system has already
taken over ten years, while Boeing developed the 777 in just
five.
These delays cost money and results in time lost on the
battlefield. Congress has been guilty of its own share of
micromanaging and politics. I hope that we can work together
better in this era where a weapon may be ``smart'' for only
so long, and prolonged congressional fights--and procurement
delays--may mean technology is stale by the time it is fully
deployed.
Throughout the military and Congress, there will be
opportunities to work together to make sure transformation
happens quickly. We have a chance in this new era to break
down some old left/right obstacles and build consensus for
moving forward.
I would like to make another offer to President Bush and
Secretary Rumsfeld. I am ready to work with them and Speaker
Hastert to appoint members to a bipartisan advisory
commission to help build consensus for updating and
modernizing the Armed Forces. The commission could work with
experts and the Congress to make sure--just as we did during
the Cold War--that we create bipartisan support for
modernization and succeed at the new type of fighting already
upon us.
In World War II, Churchill said, ``Let us learn our
lessons. Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth
or easy.'' We would be foolish to forget that. If we learn
our lessons together, we can make our military more
effective, and make the world safer for all people.
21st century foreign policy
But meeting the terrorist threat means rethinking more than
simply the way we fight wars. We also need to reexamine the
way in which we conduct our foreign policy. Our enemies are
no longer just hostile governments, but foreign demagogues
who seek support from the most impoverished citizens of the
developing world.
On the diplomatic front, a policy of commitment helps us
prevent war and promote stability. This is especially true in
the area of foreign assistance.
A central goal of our foreign aid during the Cold War was
to preserve alliances and prevent Soviet influence. Whether a
recipient government was authoritarian or democratic was not
the primary consideration, and promoting economic development
was not always a goal. On the one hand, the Marshall Plan
rebuilt Western Europe and ultimately locked in democracy
from Germany to Greece. On the other hand, American aid to
Zaire did little to improve living standards in that country.
But it did make President Mobutu one of the richest men in
the world.
Today, promoting the universal values of freedom, fairness
and opportunity has never been more in America's self-
interest. We should seek to lead a community of nations that
are law-abiding, prosperous, and democratic. Such a world
would leave fewer places for terrorists to hide, and more
places for citizens across the globe to pursue life, liberty
and happiness.
Afghanistan offers an excellent example of the strategic
rationale for such a shift. America was generous to that
country during much of the Cold War, and American military
aid following the Soviet invasion was successful in its
limited goal. In terms of a Cold War calculation, we had won
and the rationale for American aid to Afghanistan
disappeared.
But into the vacuum left by the Soviet departure and the
reduction in American interest, came an era of lawlessness
and then the repressive theocracy of the Taliban. While
[[Page H3546]]
some may have argued before September 11th that what happened
in nations like Afghanistan didn't matter to Americans, we
now know that tragically, it does. Today, nations in trouble
or chaos anywhere in the world have real consequences for the
United States.
Some people have suggested that we stop using the term
``foreign aid.'' I agree. We should remake and rename it.
Traditional foreign aid may have worked as a Cold War
construct, but our goal now should be what I call American
Partnerships. We should work closely with countries that want
to improve bilateral relations and benefit their people, and
insist that these relationships are true partnerships based
on shared values.
If we can help create a world with more economic growth,
better health care, stronger education, and more human
rights, particularly for women, we will be fulfilling an
essential part of our foreign policy.
Let me outline three qualities that should comprise this
strategy.
Economic development, democracy, and universal education.
First, economic development.
People without access to jobs and the hope for a better
life face a bleak and desperate future. In the last several
decades, as the rest of the world opened up--as trade and
freedom of movement have become more a fact of life for
most--many parts of the Middle East and Central Asia have
remained closed. Regional barriers have discouraged trade,
populations have skyrocketed, and too many economies have
grown dependent on a single commodity--oil.
We know that when nations open themselves up economically,
they will ultimately enjoy greater prosperity and moderation.
Trade is one important part of lifting up poor nations.
In a speech I gave in January to the Democratic Leadership
Council, I said that it is time we crafted a ``new
consensus'' on trade. Everyone knows that trade should be an
engine of growth for all nations, and that we can move beyond
simple left vs. right debates to craft agreements that both
promote trade and protect the environment and labor.
I suggested then that the US-Jordan trade agreement was a
model that serves American economic interests. Today, I also
want to point out that it profoundly serves our national
security and strategic interests as well.
There are promising signs that we can build on this new
consensus. We are currently negotiating trade agreements with
Chile and Singapore, two nations that are ready to use Jordan
as a model.
If we are to open the Middle East and other regions to the
hope of peace and prosperity, we will need more agreements
like the one we reached with Jordan that meet these goals.
But trade alone for many countries will not be enough. We
need a generation of development partnerships that promote
free markets and democratic governments and are leveraged to
spur growth.
Luckily, we have an opportunity for progress with the
Millennium Fund that the President recently proposed in
Monterrey, Mexico. I support its goal of fighting poverty and
hunger, encouraging universal education, enhancing women's
rights and health, reducing child mortality and promoting
sustainable development. But we need to make sure this fund
is not a shell game, diverting resources from other worthy
development efforts, and I hope the President will work with
Congress to provide increases for effective programs in the
2003 budget.
Some of these new partnerships should also come in the form
of micro-loans: support to individuals or small businesses
who need access to capital and opportunity.
In almost two-dozen Moroccan cities, small indigenous NGOs
supported by the United States are dispensing $50 to $700
loans to individuals seeking to establish and expand
businesses of their own. Such programs have generated tens of
thousands of jobs around the world, and they build a
foundation for future macroeconomic growth.
Other support must help to defeat the scourge of HIV/AIDS.
To achieve economic development, we must work together to
improve prevention, treatment and care for people with this
disease. I have been to Africa and seen the devastating
pandemic on that continent, from Zimbabwe's villages to South
Africa's maternity wards. It is a humanitarian crisis. It is
a development crisis. And its ability to spread rapidly and
destabilize nations in Africa and elsewhere makes it a
national security crisis, too.
Updating our foreign policy also requires renewing our
commitment to democracy.
In my career, I've been fortunate to spend a good deal of
time abroad meeting with foreign leaders and their citizens.
You can't learn everything out of a briefing book, and I've
learned a great deal from these travels. But nothing prepared
me for the suspicions towards America I found on my recent
trip to the Middle East.
Many students I met in relatively moderate nations such as
Morocco asked questions about American plots against their
land that seemed outlandish. The questioners often cited
regular news broadcasts--media that in too many countries are
filled with calls for hatred and violence. Just weeks ago, an
outrageous Saudi broadcast called for the enslavement of
Israeli women.
We know in America that the antidote to these voices is
more freedom. The censorship of legitimate criticism by some
governments too often leads to popular anger and a search
for scapegoats. We need to help moderate voices be heard
in these counties because they will offer a better way for
the future.
And we can help. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio
Free Asia should be marketed as models for the delivery of
compelling, objective broadcasting cross the globe. In a
world within terrorism, our security is enhanced when
accurate information about our policies can reach every
household.
We need to nurture civil society in these regions, work
with governments and nascent legislatures, and encourage free
expression and the broadening of rights for all people. The
National Endowment for Democracy and its affiliates, NDI and
IRI, deserve more support to expand the good work they're
already doing in this area.
We also must fight corruption and take measures to advance
the rule of law. Of particular importance at this moment, we
must demand that the Palestinian Authority take steps to
formulate a truly operational, accountable and democratic
governing entity. To date, Chairman Arafat has failed in each
of these areas. Real progress toward peace will only be
possible when the Palestinian Authority begins to adopt the
rule of law and accountability as guiding principles.
The third value that I think is stressed too little in our
current foreign policy is education.
The Pakistani government spends 90% of its budget on debt
service and the military, and practically nothing on
education. Governments in other developing countries have
similar difficulties in meeting the demands of a rapidly
growing population. In some Middle Eastern nations, almost
half the people are under the age of 15, and the total
population is expected to double in the next two decades. The
majority of children in the Arab and Muslim world do not have
access to a public education. Worldwide, more then 130
million children are not in school and do not receive a
regular meal each day.
Beyond the intrinsic merits of education, we know that in
countries where education is universal, economies expand and
population growth is held in check.
We should work with developing nations to help them create
universal education systems. I am happy that the Farm Bill
includes the bipartisan George McGovern-Bob Dole initiative
to provide school meals to hungry children if their parents
allow them to go to school, and if the host country agrees to
a program of education development.
It is a good start and one we should expand.
We must also encourage and help nations develop objective
curricula that will advance their place in a global society.
In Arab nations in particular, we must work, with governments
to force blatant and ugly anti-Semitic and anti-American
rhetoric out of textbooks and out of the classroom. If we
don't make this a high priority, our hope of achieving a
lasting peace in that region will never be realized. And our
hope of building long-term partnerships will be dashed.
I've touched on a few ways in which a refocused diplomatic
agenda can promote long-term change in the Middle East. But
let me be more direct. Depending on the choices we make in
the weeks and months ahead, the Middle East will either
continue to be a tinderbox for international instability, or
a land of new alliances and hope for the future.
Having witnessed the downward spiral of events in the
region over the past year, I believe our first choice is
clear--America must lead. We cannot expect that the parties
to this conflict will resole it without the active support of
the United States. We must be steadfast in our support for
Israel, in words and deeds. The United States must speak
frankly: there is no moral equivalence between suicide
bombings and defending against them.
We need strong measures to replace violence with dialogue,
and despair with hope. And we must seek a lasting peace that
provides real security for Israel and opportunity for all
people in the region.
The other regional challenge that requires American
leadership is Iraq. Saddam Hussein survives by repressing his
people and feeding on a cult of victimization. He is clearly
not a victim, and I share President Bush's resolve to
confront this menace head-on. We should use diplomatic tools
where we can, but military means when we must to eliminate
the threat he poses to the region and our own security. New
foreign policy initiatives can help remove one of the legs of
Saddam's survival by reducing the desperation of many in the
Arab world who see him as a defiant ray of hope. At the same
time, we should be prepared to remove the other leg with the
use of force. I stand ready to work with this Administration
to build an effective policy to terminate the threat posed by
this regime.
Strengthening Alliances
As we reform our military and update our foreign policy, we
must recognize that America cannot and should not do this
alone. Leadership is not a synonym for unilateralism. When we
lead a coalition, we advance not just universal values, but
mutual security as well.
After World War II, the United States created institutions
that promoted economic growth and forged the military
alliances that stood against communism. President Clinton
wisely built on that tradition, creating new alliances that
strengthened America's security. I hope the Administration
will
[[Page H3547]]
consider a new generation of international partnerships,
regional security alliances, more flexible financial
institutions, and treaties to help manage increasing
economic, political, and military complexity.
Over the past year, despite the unifying force of the war
on terrorism, an undercurrent of unilateralism has strained
our relations with allies in Europe, Asia and Latin America.
Instead, we need to redouble efforts to strengthen NATO and
reinvigorate bilateral pacts with South Korea and Japan. In
this hemisphere, we should take advantage of the recently
invoked Rio Pact to harmonize security arrangements and
pursue democratic and economic objectives. And we must
leverage all of these ties to forge wider regional alliances.
I commend the Bush Administration for its work to construct
a stronger partnership between NATO and Russia. This new
arrangement should ultimately break down lingering suspicions
and allow us to maximize strengths to confront shared
threats.
At the same time, we must intensify our bilateral work with
Russia on a range of issues, especially the need to destroy
unneeded nuclear weapons and keep others out of the hands of
terrorists and rogue nations. Former Sen. Sam Nunn has
identified this threat as the new nuclear arms race, and I
join him in calling for immediate steps to avert what is no
longer the unthinkable--the use of a weapon of mass
destruction by an unknown enemy. Our government must allocate
additional funds to secure these weapons and their
components, and accept no more excuses for the proliferation
of dangerous materials from Russia to Iran and elsewhere.
The severe consequences of proliferation are on vivid
display in the current tensions between India and Pakistan.
We must do everything possible--on our own and with our
allies--to diffuse this stand off, because the terrorists who
have fueled it will be the sole beneficiaries of an all-out
war. This is the new world in which we live. Disputes
once considered remote can have deadly consequences if met
with American apathy.
We must also continue to encourage China's participation in
bilateral and regional endeavors, provided that it agrees to
the price of admission--adherence to international standards
including human rights, trade practices and nonproliferation
rules. As former Defense Secretary Bill Perry proved a few
years ago in helping to develop a visionary policy toward
North Korea, the United States and China can make great
progress if we recognize the common, long-term interests that
our people share.
We should also look to new regional structures for
projecting strength and stability, especially in places where
our government is not willing to commit U.S. forces. A case
in point is Africa, which some have claimed is not a national
security priority for the United States. I disagree, and I
was disappointed when the Bush administration cut funding for
the Africa Crisis Responsive Initiative. This program was
designed to build indigenous capability within Africa that
could respond when needed, and help regional leaders like
Nigeria calm trouble spots so the United States would not
have to.
We must be prepared to build alliances in regions that
flare up unexpectedly. Afghanistan is the best example of
this today. The Administration deserves credit for the
military victory there. However, it will be shortsighted if
we stop now and withhold support for expanding the
international security presence beyond Kabul, as Interim
President Karzai has urgently requested. Instead, we must
take steps to make that nation a prime example of the
coalition's unbending commitment to democracy and
development.
challenge to americans
The last challenge I'd like to discuss today is to instill
all these initiatives with a new energy of civic involvement
at home and abroad.
In a new, more interconnected world, individuals or small
groups can pose a serious threat to America's heartland.
Nineteen hijackers did what Germany and Japan failed to
achieve in the entire Second World War. This is a new front
involving our firefighter and police, our EMS, the INS, the
Customs Agency, the Coast Guard and all other organizations
responsible for protecting the United States.
This is a completely new threat to our home front, and I am
deeply concerned that the appropriate sense of urgency is
absent from our civil defense efforts.
After Pearl Harbor, we moved with speed to mobilize our
nation in defense of democracy. Almost nine months after
Sept. 11th, America has still not crafted a strategy to
significantly strengthen our nation's security, despite a
series of recent warnings from our government.
We need to reorganize our homeland defense agencies in
order to maximize the safety of all Americans. Not only does
the Homeland Security Director need to be a cabinet officer--
he needs budgetary authority. He needs operational authority.
And he must provide a comprehensive plan to the Congress on
our national strategy for homeland security. Such a plan
should involve all Americans in our civil defense effort.
As the Intelligence Committees begin their hearings today,
we all know that our ability to coordinate information
gathered at home and abroad needs to be improved. A task
force led by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft
has developed proposals to better integrate the work of our
intelligence agencies. Given the urgency of collecting and
utilizing intelligence effectively, I hope the Administration
will act upon these ideas.
Finally, we must harness the spirit that defined people's
response to the Sept. 11th attacks. American citizens who
have enjoyed the rich benefits of democracy and free
markets possess a unique capacity to energize these values
across the world.
Let's be clear: Americans face a special challenge in this
conflict: to educate ourselves as never before, to
participate in decisions that affect all out lives, and to
make connections with people across the globe. We need to
encourage citizens of all ages to get involved in the Peace
Corps, the diplomatic corps, Americorps, the CIA and the FBI.
One of the efforts I am most enthusiastic about helps
experienced Americans go overseas and share their skills with
people in developing countries.
I met a retired businessman from Chicago on my most recent
trip to the Middle East. He had volunteered to run a start-up
micro-loan program in Morocco. With his project nearing
completion, I asked him what he was planning to do next.
``I thought about going home to play golf,'' he said. ``But
I have decided to stay in the Middle East. I've seen what can
be achieved here in Morocco, and I am going to another
country and do it all over again.''
For every American like him, we counteract a book of lies.
For every business he helps succeed and every person who
finds a job, we diminish the pool from which the haters
recruit.
At home, government, industry, and individuals must also
participate in this effort to expand knowledge of other
peoples, and foster interaction between nations.
In 1994, Newt Gingrich and I sponsored a pilot exchange
program devised by the San-Francisco-based Center for Citizen
Initiatives. Individual families in St. Louis and Atlanta
hosted a handful of Russian entrepreneurs who came here to
learn skills from American business people. Today, hundreds
of Russians are coming to the U.S. each year to get hands-on
training and Americans in more than 40 states are
participating in the program.
The challenge for every American is to convince the world
that it is better to live together than at war, looking
toward the promise of the future rather than the grievances
of the past.
Updating our public diplomacy requires updating our
politics. In the 1990s, with the Cold War over, it seemed
like the parties could play politics with any issue. But
today we need a new politics based on an open exchange of
approaches. We must be free to propose ideas and work
together to implement the best ones. This may well be the
most important public policy question of our lifetimes. We
must be doing our very best, thinking our very best, working
together at our very best.
If we do, I think there is every reason for optimism.
Extremist leaders who advocate violence against America
must constantly worry that their own rhetoric will consume
themselves and their cause. To quote Churchill once more,
``dictators ride on tigers which they dare not dismount.'' In
contrast, we have the luxury of trusting in democracy and the
good sense of our fellow citizens.
Just as we battled the Soviets through 50 years of the Cold
War as a united America, so will we battle terrorists and
their supporters for as long as it takes. Today, we enjoy a
new and productive relationship with Russia; one day, we will
hopefully enjoy a new and productive relationship with those
who distrust us now.
We know that civilization requires protection, and that
freedom demands commitment and sacrifice. But it also
requires imagination and clear thinking.
In 1947, in an address to a joint session of Congress,
Harry Truman spoke about the communist threat in Europe, and
the struggle for freedom and democracy in Greece and Turkey.
He ended his speech with the reminder: ``Great
responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift
movement of events.''
Twice in the last century, and now again, our nation is
being asked to measure itself. If we fail, the consequences
are severe. For ourselves, and for the world, let us succeed.
____________________