[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 16, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6650-H6651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2015
                 ON THE UNITED STATES ROLE IN THE WORLD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to discuss the need for a 
comprehensive strategy to advance U.S. interests in the world. Last 
week I delivered two addresses on this topic. In the second speech, I 
argued that our understanding of the role the U.S. should play in the 
world is a foundation of our strategy. It will define our vital 
interests, and it will condition the means we use for advancing those 
interests.
  Today, the United States is the world's dominant economic, political, 
and military power. There is no peer or near-peer competitor to us, nor 
does one appear likely to emerge in the near future. Some have 
characterized the U.S. as a hegemonic power or as the world's 
policeman, both those who approve and those who disapprove of such a 
state of affairs. President Clinton, echoing Winston Churchill, 
eloquently described a vision of the U.S. as ``the indispensable 
nation,'' not a world hegemon but a consistent and ever-present ally 
and arbiter acting around the world.
  Still others advocate that the U.S. withdraw from a place of central 
prominence on the world stage to avoid the costs and implicit 
responsibilities of that role. I believe the U.S. should remain the 
world's indispensable nation and in a later speech, I will discuss the

[[Page H6651]]

ways in which this role should inform the formulation of our 
comprehensive strategy, but first let me discuss the other options.
  Those who would have us significantly reduce our role on the world's 
stage cannot provide a credible description of who or what would 
replace the U.S. in the role of world leadership. The U.N. is not up to 
the task, nor is there any other international organization. As already 
mentioned, there is no other country in a position to fill the role of 
world leadership.
  To embrace such an approach, we would have to accept that significant 
portions of the world would simply be left to their own devices. Yet we 
know that places as remote as the Hindu Kush are home to those who 
would attack us and our allies. What other corner of the world, then, 
do we judge to be so distant and so remote as to be beyond our 
interest? And how would world fault lines, such as the Taiwan Strait, 
the India-Pakistan Line of Control, and the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict respond to a world leadership vacuum? The answer is, not well. 
In short, for the U.S. to abdicate its position of world leadership 
would be highly detrimental to our national interest.
  What then does accepting a role of world leadership entail? And if it 
is a current necessity, is it an inherent good to be indefinitely 
maintained? In other words, should the U.S. view our position as world 
leader as so necessary to our security that we act largely to maintain 
this position, which is the primary characteristic of a hegemonic power 
or empire? Again, the answer is no. To do so is to put our national 
interest in opposition to the national interests of much of the rest of 
the world. It is inconsistent with the desires of the American people, 
with the extent of the costs they're willing to bear for world 
leadership and, I would argue, with our sense of morality and fair 
play. Our vital interests should be defined as suggested by President 
Clinton, by our role as the world's indispensable nation: taking a 
leadership role in advancing and protecting our interests around the 
world in concert with our friends and allies as part of an open and 
evolving international system that is fair to all nations. To do so, we 
must restore the prestige and credibility of the United States, and 
repair and rebuild the relationship with our major international 
partners. With this role as our goal, we can define those interests 
critical to achieving it, and develop and adopt an appropriate 
strategy.

                          ____________________