[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 12839-12840]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    OP-ED BY SENATOR GEORGE McGOVERN

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the delineation between an 
``internationalist'' and ``isolationist'' has too often been drawn at 
the doctrine of preemption. Those who supported the war in Iraq are 
considered ``internationalists'' while those who did not, are shunted 
as ``isolationists.'' This classification is unprecedented in the more 
than two centuries of American foreign policy. Opposition to an 
unprovoked invasion is not isolationism. And internationalism is more 
than merely waging war.
  On May 12, the Washington Post published an op-ed by my friend and 
our former colleague, Senator George McGovern. As he has done many 
times in the past, Senator McGovern has provided important and timely 
insights on U.S. foreign policy.
  The debate over U.S. policy towards Iraq over the past several months 
has been littered with references to ``internationalists'' and 
``isolationists.'' Senator McGovern has penned some important 
reflections about how these labels have been used in previous foreign 
policy debates.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the op-ed by Senator McGovern 
in the Washington Post on May 12, be printed in the Record so that all 
Senators and staff have an opportunity to review his comments.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From The Washington Post, May 12, 2003]

                  A More Constructive Internationalism

                        (By George S. McGovern)

       In his May 1 op-ed piece, Will Marshall praised 
     presidential candidates Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, John 
     Kerry and John Edwards as ``Blair Democrats''--
     internationalists who are willing ``to use force in the 
     national interest.'' He rejoiced that the Democratic Party 
     ``is moving away from McGovernism and back to its 
     international roots.''
       One wonders why Marshall went to Britain for an example of 
     how American Democrats ought to behave. It is more puzzling 
     why he concluded that I'm opposed to internationalism and the 
     ``use of force in the national interest.'' I first used force 
     in the national interest during World War II, when I flew 35 
     combat missions in Europe.
       American involvement in that war was clearly in our 
     national interest, and that is why I volunteered at the age 
     of 19 to be part of it.
       It is true that I opposed the American war in Vietnam, but 
     not because I had ceased to be an internationalist. That war 
     was a disastrous folly, as all literate people now 
     acknowledge. We were never more isolated from the 
     international community than when our troops were deepest in 
     the Vietnam jungle. A close second in isolating us from the 
     international community was the invasion of Iraq, a largely 
     defenseless little desert state that posed no threat to us 
     and had taken no action against us.
       The best way to support our troops is to keep them out of 
     needless wars such as Iraq and Vietnam. The best way for 
     America to play a constructive role internationally is to 
     support the United Nations and to work toward expanding 
     international trade, aid and investment while protecting our 
     workers and the environment. An internationalist would also 
     support the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the 
     International Criminal Court, the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
     Treaty and an international ban on land mines.
       An internationalist also would support the International 
     Food for Peace Program, which I directed during the Kennedy 
     administration, as well as the efforts I carried forward to 
     reduce global hunger during my service as a Clinton 
     administration ambassador to the U.N. Food and Agriculture 
     agencies in Rome. Former senator Bob Dole and I have teamed 
     up to press for an international school lunch program that 
     would reach 300 million elementary school children who are 
     not being fed.
       I am opposed to the Bush doctrine of ``preemptive war''--
     what heretofore has been known as aggression or invasion. I 
     am also opposed to congressional resolutions that give the 
     president a blank check to go to war when he pleases.
       I have always thought America to be the greatest country on 
     earth. One of the reasons

[[Page 12840]]

     I think so is because of our great founding fathers, 
     including Thomas Jefferson, who spoke of ``a decent respect 
     to the opinions of mankind.'' Is there any doubt that the 
     opinion of mankind was overwhelmingly against our wars in 
     Vietnam and Iraq?
       We don't measure a nation's internationalism by the number 
     of troops it sends to other countries. But that test, Adolf 
     Hilter would be the greatest internationalist of the 20th 
     century. I might add for Marshall's edification that I would 
     not have won the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972--
     winning 11 primaries, including two largest states, New York 
     and California--if I had been perceived as an isolationist. I 
     also believe that if the disgraceful conduct of President 
     Richard Nixon during that campaign had been known before the 
     election, I would have been elected. If so, I would have led 
     as an internationalist unafraid to use force in the national 
     interest.
       The writer was a Democratic senator from South Dakota from 
     1963 to 1981 and his party's presidential nominee in 1972.

                          ____________________