[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 8276-8277]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      THE DANGERS OF UNILATERALISM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 16, 2001

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to read in the May 9 
issue of The Hill an article by David Silverberg which sounded an 
important warning about excessively unilateralist tendencies in the 
Bush administration foreign policy. Coming from the perspective from 
which Mr. Silverberg writes, I think this is an especially interesting 
article and I

[[Page 8277]]

hope that it has a favorable impact on the policy makers in the Bush 
administration.

                      [From The Hill, May 9, 2001]

               America's Course Toward Splendid Isolation

                         (By David Silverberg)

       Late in the reign of Queen Victoria, Britain, possessing 
     the world's most powerful navy, owning an empire on which the 
     sun never set, described its diplomatic strategy as one of 
     ``splendid isolation.''
       By that Britons meant that they remained above the passions 
     and rivalries of the European continent.
       As one charts the course of President Bush's foreign policy 
     today, one gets the uncomfortable feeling that the United 
     States is heading toward its own version of ``splendid 
     isolation.'' This is not the same as the isolationism of the 
     1930s, which would have had the United States withdraw from 
     the world stage. Nor is it neo-isolationism, which would 
     revive the 1930s doctrine in a new guise. It is something 
     different.
       It also comes as we stand on the edge of a new defense era. 
     In the coming weeks, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is 
     going to unveil a new overarching defense strategy. This 
     plan, formulated in great secrecy, is expected to go beyond 
     the strategy created in the Bottom-Up Review of 1993 which 
     has since then governed American defense.
       Early indications are that the Rumsfeld policy will be a 
     policing strategy, aimed at maintaining the status quo 
     against possible violent efforts at change.
       That's fine as far as it goes, and an informed critique 
     will have to await its unveiling. However, it's likely to 
     follow the general foreign policy outlines of this 
     administration. As war is politics by other means, strategy 
     is policy by other means.
       To date, this administration has consistently taken a 
     unilateral approach in foreign policy. It is abandoning the 
     Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming. In a brusque departure from 
     previous policy--White House denials notwithstanding--
     President Bush has declared that the United States will 
     defend Taiwan and the United States will sell it a 
     significant arms package. He did this without consulting 
     allies or the potential rival, China.
       Now, in pursuit of a missile defense shield, the United 
     States is seeking to abandon or significantly modify the 
     Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972.
       In the interests of fairness, instances of multilateralism 
     have to be noted: The United States is promoting the 
     hemispheric Free Trade Area of the Americas, and relations 
     with Mexico have never been better.
       So what does all this add up to? The Bush administration 
     appears to believe in muscular unilateralism everywhere but 
     in the Western Hemisphere and on trade issues. The United 
     States will depart from the international consensus on the 
     environment and its commitments on ABM, and will build a 
     missile shield behind which it will withdraw, while jousting 
     to contain China.
       If this is to be American policy, American strategy and 
     American military means will have to follow it. The United 
     States will spend billions on a missile defense shield. The 
     United States will have to have very robust naval forces to 
     protect Taiwan and the American mainland from attack, but 
     will also have to be able to reach far afield for pinpoint 
     attacks should they be necessary.
       While President Bush specifically rejected isolationism as 
     a policy during the campaign, a form of isolationism appears 
     to be taking shape on a day-to-day basis. The United States 
     will not withdraw from the world, but it will act 
     unilaterally when it feels the need. Of course, any country 
     has this right--it's inherent in sovereignty. But during the 
     previous administration the United States exercised its 
     rights judiciously and made real efforts to work in concert 
     with partners, allies and even competitors like China.
       The world is not accepting American unilateralism 
     passively. The United States has been voted off the United 
     Nations' Human Rights Commission in a small, but telling, 
     gesture of disapproval. Such gestures are likely to become 
     more significant and more pronounced if things don't change.
       Perhaps the problem is simply one of style. The world was 
     more accustomed to Bill Clinton's more ingratiating ways and 
     is having trouble adjusting to a more brusque manner.
       If style is the difficulty, it's easily corrected. But if 
     the administration is determined to be an unrestrained 
     unilateralist it will court, literally, a world of trouble. 
     As President Theodore Roosevelt counseled, ``Talk softly and 
     carry a big stick.'' The world knows about America's big 
     stick, perhaps George W. Bush and his administration should 
     speak a bit more softly.
       What we may end up with is an American version of 
     ``splendid isolation'' where America stands proud but very 
     alone in the world. We can achieve isolation if we want--but 
     it certainly won't be splendid.

     

                          ____________________