[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 136 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5619-S5621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN POLICY
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my friend and
colleague, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, on the outstanding speech he
delivered yesterday at the Jesse Helms Center in Wingate, NC. I share
Senator Rubio's conviction that America is at our best in the world
when we put our values at the center of our foreign policy, beginning
with a commitment to the cause of freedom. Senator Rubio's thoughtful
warning against the danger of withdrawing behind our borders is
especially timely and important. He is absolutely right that, when we
do not confront monsters like al-Qaida abroad, they will sooner or
later come to threaten us here at home.
I thank Senator Rubio for delivering such a lucid and visionary
speech. His remarks reaffirm for me the critical leadership role that I
am convinced he will play in this chamber, and in our country, in the
years to come. His voice is an important one. I ask unanimous consent
to have printed in the Record Senator Rubio's remarks as prepared for
delivery.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senator Marco Rubio's Remarks as Delivered Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. First
of all, thank you all for coming. I am honored and privileged
to be here. I'm impressed by the good work, by the way, that
the Helms Center is doing in teaching young people the
foreign policy principles that Senator Helms stood for. And
I'm honored by this opportunity to speak to you for a few
moments eight and a half months into my Senate career on what
I think is a historic and important moment in American
history. And I hope by the end of our time here together
tonight we'll all share that belief irrespective of where we
fall on the individual issues.
I have come to deeply appreciate Jesse Helms' willingness
to fight for his views--particularly in foreign policy--and
his unwillingness to compromise on matters of basic
principle. That made him rare in Washington, and it also made
him influential. I want to read what a distinguished
journalist once wrote that it was ``his relentless,
unswerving application of conservative principles to
practically every issue'' is what ``made him a major player
in Washington and [in] national politics.''
Jesse Helms was, in particular, an unswerving champion of
freedom fighters. When he was still a junior Senator, he and
a former governor of California--a fellow named Ronald
Reagan--they worked together to introduce a ``morality in
foreign policy'' plank to the 1976 Republican platform.
Here is what it said, it said: ``The goal of Republican
foreign policy is the achievement of liberty under law and a
just and lasting peace in the world. The principles by which
we act to achieve peace and to protect the interests of the
United States must merit the restored confidence of our
people.''
It also said that ``we must face the world with no
illusions about the nature of tyranny.'' And it pledged that:
``Ours will be a foreign policy that keeps this ever in
mind.''
Now, remarkably, this was controversial in the 1970s--the
era of detente, of defeat and of retreat. The idea of placing
morality at the center of our dealings with other nations was
derided by supposed sophisticates as unrealistic and
uninformed.
But then Ronald Reagan took these words to heart and he
made them the center of his foreign policy--a foreign policy
that even his critics now admit was remarkably successful.
President Reagan challenged the ``evil empire.''
``Tear down this wall,'' he demanded--and it came down. He
won the Cold War not by coddling dictators but by confronting
them--and by standing up for the principles that have defined
us since the formation of our great Republic.
As I think about the challenges of the 21st century--
challenges that range from upheavals in the Middle East to
the fiscal crisis back home--I am mindful of Ronald Reagan's
example and of Jesse Helms'.
I am guided by their understanding that America's strength
lies in its ideals, and that if we are to make this century
another American century, we must be prepared to fight for
those ideals.
Now, fundamentally, I believe that the world is a better
place when the United States of America is strong and
prosperous. Now, I don't believe that America has the power
or means to solve every issue in the world. But I do believe
there are some critically important issues where America does
have a meaningful role to play in resolving crises that are
tied to our national interests.
If we refuse to play our rightful role and shrink from the
world, America and the entire world will pay a terrible
price. And it is our responsibility to clearly outline to the
American people what our proper role in the world is and what
American interests are at stake when we engage abroad.
At the core of our strength are the ``self-evident'' truths
of the Declaration of Independence: ``that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,'' that government
exists to ``secure these rights'' and that it derives its
``just powers from the consent of the governed.''
These are not just our rights as Americans. These are the
rights of all human beings. Nurtured in thirteen embattled
colonies along the Eastern seaboard more than two centuries
ago, the blessings of liberties have since spread to more
than 100 countries around the world.
Freedom's domain now stretches from Mexico to Mongolia.
Some of the world's democracies are ancient nations. Others
are more recent in origin. Some are poor. Others are rich.
Some are Christian. Others Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist,
Confucian, Hindu. All are united by their respect for certain
fundamental human rights--even if they do not always achieve
in practice the ideals they seek to honor. America should
take pride in knowing that so many of the freedom movements
we have seen around the world since 1776 draw their
inspiration from the courage and the words of our own
Founding Fathers.
The honor roll of free countries does not yet include the
land of my parents or grandparents--Cuba--but that I believe
is only a matter of time. Because sooner or later, the tides
of freedom will wash against the shores of this island nation
that has been trapped for too long in a prison constructed by
Fidel and Raul Castro.
[[Page S5620]]
Why am I so confident about the future? Because in our
time, we have seen how dictatorships have fallen and
democracies risen--even in the most unpromising surroundings.
Just in the past year, in the Middle East--the region whose
governments have been most resistant to freedom--we have seen
the first stirrings of democratic upheavals. We do not know
how the Arab Spring will ultimately turn out, but it has
already proven one thing: that no faith, no ethnicity, no
region, and no people are immune to the fundamental desire to
control their own destiny.
As dissidents and freedom fighters battle dictators around
the world, they look for support to the greatest democracy in
the world. And America must answer their call.
We do not seek to impose our vision of government. We do
not insist that every nation must have a presidency, a
supreme court or a bicameral legislature. Nor do we have any
intention of using force to depose every despotic regime on
the planet.
But we must do what we can to champion the cause of
freedom--not only with the power of our example but also with
our money and our resources, our ingenuity and our diplomacy,
and on rare occasion, when there is no good alternative and
when our national interest is clearly at stake, our armed
might.
Without our commitment to the rights of man enunciated by
our forefathers, what are we? Just another big, rich country.
But when we champion our ideals, we gain moral authority--and
we gain physical security.
You see, we may not always agree with our fellow
democracies, but seldom, if ever, do we fight them. The more
functioning democracies there are--``functioning'' being the
important quality--the easier we can breathe.
States that do not respect the rights of their citizens
seldom respect the rights of their neighbors. They become
breeding grounds for all sorts of ills--from the trafficking
of humans and drugs to contagious diseases and famine, from
nuclear proliferation to terrorism--that threaten our own
security.
Now some suggest that America should heed the famous words
of John Quincy Adams and go ``not abroad, in search of
monsters to destroy.'' The problem is if America turns inward
and ignores the monsters abroad, they are likely to come
here.
It happened in 1917 when German U-boats torpedoed American
merchant ships.
It happened in 1941 when Japanese aircraft bombed Pearl
Harbor.
And it happened ten years ago when Al Qaeda carried off the
deadliest terrorist attack in history from a base in the
Hindu Kush. If we do not have the luxury of ignoring
developments in lands as remote as Afghanistan, then there is
no corner of the world from which we can safely turn our
backs.
The fanatics who orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 were
nurtured in lands that knew no freedom, in countries where,
for too long, the people's pursuit of happiness had been
subordinated to the rulers' pursuit of power. A lack of
economic, social and political opportunity helped to create
the conditions that enabled a radical few--deluded by
demented doctrines of hate--to commit mass murder simply to
make a statement.
The form of the threat was relatively novel: We were
attacked not by another nation-state but by a band of
terrorists who took shelter in a failed state. But this
threat--like the threats of Nazism, fascism, and communism--
comes from a sick and failed ideology.
With Osama bin Laden's recent demise, the founder of Al
Qaeda joined a long list of tyrants--Adolf Hitler to Saddam
Hussein--who have experienced for themselves the righteous
wrath of a democracy bestirred from its peaceful pursuits.
I applaud President Obama for ordering the raid that
finally brought Osama bin Laden to his just fate. I applaud
the President, too, for his stirring words in support of
reformers in the Middle East. I only wish that he had shown
more commitment to the cause of freedom. He has been slow and
hesitant, and we have missed some significant opportunities
to alter the strategic landscape in America's favor. And the
President's failure to lead has served to magnify the damage
done to U.S. interests.
For example, in the summer of 2009, the young people of
Iran took to the streets to protest against mullahs that had
consigned them to poverty, while squandering oil riches to
build nuclear weapons and support foreign terrorist groups.
The President was so intent on negotiating with Iran's
tyrants that he did little to help its people. As the Green
Revolution fizzled, protesters demanded to know, ``Obama, are
you with us or against us?''
This year, the Administration did come to the aid of the
people of Libya, but only after weeks of hesitation that
allowed Moammar Qaddafi--an anti-American criminal--to get
back on his feet and resume slaughtering his own people.
Then it took another four months before the President was
willing to recognize the Transitional National Council as the
rightful government of Libya. And even then, the
Administration refused to commit the resources and make the
tactical decisions that could have shortened this conflict.
The regime was so lacking in popular support that it
finally fell, but the fact that the war dragged on so long
has, at a minimum, raised the costs of reconstruction and
lengthened the toll of the dead and wounded.
An anonymous presidential adviser justified this by
claiming that it was part of a deliberate strategy to ``lead
from behind''.
We could see the same doctrine in effect in Syria where the
President waited a full six months after the start of a
popular uprising--six months that Bashar Assad and his goons
spent indiscriminately slaughtering their own people--before
calling for Assad's removal. And even then, the
Administration refused to recall our ambassador or impose the
entire list of sanctions that some of us in Congress had been
pressing for.
Now the President's defenders suggest that it was right not
to get more involved because they worry about the
consequences of turmoil in the Middle East. I've often hear
it said that: ``Better the devil you know.'' We should be
concerned about what will come next in places like Egypt that
have been American allies.
I can understand why President Obama hesitated before
finally withdrawing our support from Hosni Mubarak, which I
believe, under the circumstances, was the right thing to do.
But it is hard to see why we would hesitate in the case of
Iran, Syria or Libya--all avowed enemies of America. It is
hard to imagine a ruler worse than Ahmadinejad, Assad or
Qaddafi, and easy to imagine that their successors might be
much more amenable to our interests.
Even in countries such as Egypt, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia,
we simply do not have the luxury of endorsing the status quo.
Instead of tying our fate to discredited dictators, we
would be better advised to build constructive alternatives.
That's what Ronald Reagan did when he pushed Ferdinand Marcos
out of power in the Philippines in 1986. The following year
he did the same thing when he helped push a military ruler
out of power in South Korea and supported the transition to
civilian rule. Today, South Korea is one of the world's
freest countries--and one of the richest. Yet only forty
years ago, it was poorer than North Korea and nearly as poor
as Syria. Its transformation shows what is possible when free
people are allowed to harness their full potential.
This is the change that we must encourage in the Middle
East. Now unfortunately the views of some of the protestors
distasteful. I certainly condemn the anti-Israel sentiments
uttered by protest leaders, and I can understand why many
Israelis are alarmed by the recent turn of events.
Israel is one of America's closest allies in the world, and
our closest and most reliable friend in the Middle East. It
is a shining bastion of democracy, liberty, and opportunity
in one of the most blighted parts of the world. But the naive
strategy of trying to appease Islamist extremists like Iran,
and turning our back on Israel, will only embolden our common
enemies and weaken the prospects for peace--and for democracy
itself.
For the sake of peace, and out of principle, the United
States must strongly affirm its commitment to Israel, not
just in words but in deeds.
At the same time, the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya,
Syria, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern lands are in the
streets because they want a better life for themselves and
their children. They aren't asking for the imposition of a
Taliban-style rule. They are asking for the ballot box and
for economic opportunity. And if their desires are fulfilled,
they will move closer to Thomas Jefferson's vision of the
world than Osama bin Laden's.
That is why I am so concerned that the Administration may
let this historic opportunity pass. I am glad that the
President is trying to bring along our allies. But our allies
would be the first to tell you that nothing important or
difficult happens without American leadership. Unfortunately,
that leadership has been missing at a critical juncture
during the last few years.
Most recently, for example, it has been suggested that the
advice of military commanders in Iraq be completely ignored
in favor of a dramatic troop drawdown that even Iraqis say is
too drastic.
It's a reminder that, in our republic, elections have
consequences not just at home, but all over the world.
Because while previous generations of leaders--and even some
I serve with today--have stood up for unpopular but necessary
measures, even at the risk of losing elections, others are
simply too willing to do what is politically self-serving.
America, and the entire world for that matter, needs resolute
leadership in this era of historic but volatile
transformation, particularly in the Middle East--and
particularly in Iraq.
Beyond the Middle East, in our own hemisphere, a
combination of narco-trafficking networks, anti-American
strongmen, and the increasing penetration of Iranian
influence is raising dangers of a special kind. Individuals
like Hugo Chavez, who have no business running anything in
the first place much less a country, have worked strenuously
to build a bloc of countries to work against U.S. interests--
and at great risk to great friends like Colombia.
Again, the Administration has missed easy opportunities to
stand with our allies, for instance, through free trade
agreements. We cannot continue to ignore or be complacent
about Latin America, nor can we relegate our friends in the
region to anything less than high priority partnerships for
us to continue nurturing.
After all, the security of our democratic society depends
on the success of liberty in our own hemisphere. The fight
against drug
[[Page S5621]]
and human trafficking, and the infiltration of Islamist
terrorists requires the success of economic and political
freedoms--and of the rule of law--in Latin America. We must
be more vigilant--and more decisive--in defending our
interests in our own hemisphere.
And by the way, the notion that we should ``lead from
behind'' would have been incomprehensible even to the
Democrat who preceded President Obama. In his second
inaugural address, President Bill Clinton said that ``America
stands alone as the world's indispensable nation.'' That is
as true today as it was in 1997.
If America refuses to lead, who will combat international
outlaws? Who will stop terrorists and weapons proliferators?
Who will deal with the Iranian and North Korean nuclear
programs? The rising disorder in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?
The growing challenge from China which seeks to dominate East
Asia, but won't even let its own people use Google?
The world counts on America. And whether we like it or not,
there is virtually no aspect of our daily lives that is not
directly impacted by what happens in the world around us. We
can choose to ignore global problems, but global problems
will not ignore us.
Yet our ability to lead is threatened. It's threatened not
by any external foe, but rather by our own fiscal woes.
This year, the national debt surpassed the size of our
economy and it will continue to grow unless we get it under
control.
Now, I am a strong advocate of cutting unnecessary and
wasteful spending, but the defense budget is not the biggest
driver of our debt--it accounts for roughly twenty percent of
our annual federal spending. By contrast, entitlement
programs swallow more than half the budget and they are the
main drivers of our debt.
The Pentagon already faced sharp cuts. During his last two
years in office, Secretary of Defense Gates cut or curtailed
procurement programs that, if taken to completion, would have
cost $300 billion. This summer, the President and
congressional leaders agreed to cut another $350 billion from
the defense budget over the next ten years.
Those cuts by themselves alone are worrisome enough but
what is more worrisome is what's looming: In the worst case
scenario, if the so-called Debt Super Committee doesn't reach
any deal at all, the Pentagon could stand to be slashed by
more than $1 trillion over ten years.
Our new secretary of defense--himself is a well-known
budget hawk--has warned that cutbacks of this scale would
have a ``devastating effect on our national defense.'' I can
but echo Leon Panetta's words.
The American armed forces have been one of the greatest
forces of good in the world during the past century. They
stopped Nazism and Communism and other evils such as Serbian
ethnic-cleansing. They have helped birthed democracies from
Germany to Iraq. They have delivered relief supplies, and
performed countless tasks in service to our nation.
All they have ever asked for in return is that we provide
them the tools to get the job done--and that we look after
them and their families. They have never failed us in our
time of need.
We must not fail them now. We must maintain a strong
national defense.
Foreign aid is also an important part of America's foreign
policy leadership. While we certainly must be careful about
spending money on foreign aid, the reality is that it is not
the reason we have a growing debt problem.
If it is done right, and when done in partnership with the
private sector and faith-based community, foreign aid spreads
America's influence around the world in a positive way. Let
me give you an example: the Bush Administration's program to
provide HIV medicine to Africa has not only saved lives, it
has increased America's influence across the continent. These
are allies in the future that can be our partners, not just
in our political struggles on the world stage, but in
economic trade. And a world where people are prosperous and
free to grow their economies and pursue their own dreams is a
better world for all of us.
I began by quoting the words of Jesse Helms and Ronald
Reagan. In closing, let me recall the great words of one of
the most important Democrat leaders of the 20th Century--
Harry S. Truman. In 1951, speaking to the New York Avenue
Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., this is what he
said:
``I have the feeling that God has created us and brought us
to our present position of power and strength for some great
purpose. It is not given to us to know fully what that
purpose is. But I think we may be sure of one thing. And that
is that our country is intended to do all it can in
cooperating with other nations to help create peace and
preserve peace in the world. It is given to us to defend the
spiritual values--the moral code--against the vast forces of
evil that seek to destroy them.''
There are still vast forces of evil seeking to destroy us.
The form of the threat has changed since Truman's time. But
evil remains potent--and America remains the strongest line
of defense, often the only line of defense.
I pray that we will continue to find the wisdom and
courage--and resources--to act effectively in the defense of
our moral code--the same code that we share with all
civilized people. The world needed a strong America in
Truman's time. And if this is to be another American Century,
the world needs a strong America now.
Because freedom cannot survive without us.
Thank you so much for having me. May God bless all of you
and may God bless our country. Thank you.
____________________