[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1714-1716]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      AMERICA'S PLACE IN THE WORLD

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday I gave an address to the 
World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, CA on America's role in the 
world. I ask unanimous consent to print my address in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Today America faces four great international challenges: 
     the war on terror, the situation in Iraq, the Israel-
     Palestinian dispute, and the crisis in North Korea. These 
     four present challenges to our Nation greater than any our 
     Nation has faced in decades.
       With respect to the ongoing war on terror, which centers 
     around Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, I can report substantial 
     progress. The United States with its allies and the Northern 
     Alliance succeeded in dispersing the Taliban government and 
     putting al-Qaida operatives on the run. The government of 
     Hamid Karzai is reasserting control over Afghanistan, 
     although the going is difficult.
       The security situation in Afghanistan is improving. We have 
     7,500 troops on the ground, and our allies, 5,000; they are 
     providing security until the new government of Afghanistan is 
     able to train military and police.
       And, as a final action in the last Congress, a new 
     Department of Homeland Security has been created to better 
     coordinate efforts to safeguard the American people from 
     terrorist attacks.
       On the negative side, however, Osama bin Laden and many of 
     his senior lieutenants are most probably still alive, along 
     with hundreds, and possibly thousands of followers. They 
     remain extremely dangerous.
       And while Mullah Omar and the Taliban have been removed 
     from power, they lurk in the remote areas of Afghanistan 
     along the border with Pakistan and wait for a sign of 
     weakness so they can return.
       Bottom line, if we are to be successful in the war on 
     terror, it is critical that Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and 
     other senior Taliban and al-Qaida operatives be brought to 
     justice.
       So, we must stay the course in Afghanistan. And wherever 
     the war on terror takes us, we must not allow ourselves to 
     get distracted or take our eye off the ball.
       We must ensure that the Afghan economy and infrastructure 
     are rebuilt. We must protect this fledgling democracy so it 
     can survive and the Afghan people can flourish.
       Just last week, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of 
     Defense, said from Kabul that ``stability and security'' must 
     be the goal. I agree.
       Internationally, we must relentlessly pursue those who 
     would use terror to destroy us. That must be our mission and 
     it must be sustained until the job is finished.
       With regard to Iraq, let me begin by saying categorically 
     that no information has been presented to the Senate to date 
     to connect Iraq to 9-11 or to any al-Qaida terrorist attack.
       Nevertheless, Vice President Cheney laid the groundwork for 
     a preemptive U.S. military strike against Iraq in a major 
     speech last August 26, stating that Iraq either is, or would 
     imminently be, a nuclear power.
       But he provided no evidence to back up this accusation 
     either publicly to the American people or privately, on a 
     classified basis, to the Senate. He was, I believe, laying 
     the ground work for a unilateral and preemptive attack on 
     Iraq.
       Then, however, in a welcome shift of position, the 
     President went to the United Nations on September 12 and 
     strongly urged the Security Council to compel Iraqi 
     compliance with the 16 resolutions Iraq has defied over the 
     past 11 years.
       The President has repeatedly stated that the United States 
     will lead ``a coalition of the willing'' to compel Iraq's 
     compliance. In September, it appeared that the President had 
     turned away from a unilateral course of action to a 
     multilateral one. That was good and welcome news.
       On October 10, I voted for a Senate Resolution that would 
     have required the President to return to the Security Council 
     for a vote before launching a military strike against Iraq. 
     That resolution was defeated.
       Subsequently, and based on the President's support for 
     acting in concert with the UN Security Council, I joined 76 
     of my colleagues and voted to support a resolution 
     authorizing the President to use of force to compel 
     compliance if necessary.
       Since November 24, the UN inspection teams have inspected 
     Iraqi facilities that produce chemicals and pharmaceuticals, 
     Saddam's palace compounds, health care centers, water plants, 
     and numerous other facilities where old records, prior 
     inspections, or intelligence indicate chemical, biological or 
     nuclear weapons or missiles might either be made or secreted.
       The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, is also in 
     the process of doubling the number of inspectors.
       On December 7, Iraq gave the United Nations a 12,000-page 
     account of its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile 
     programs.
       And on December 28, Iraq provided the UN inspectors with 
     the list of Iraqis participating in its weapons programs.

[[Page 1715]]

       January 27 is a key date. On that day, the findings of the 
     IAEA inspectors will be detailed, and any discrepancies 
     between what they have found thus far and Iraq's earlier 
     declaration should be revealed.
       Inspections to date have produced no evidence sufficient to 
     clearly establish continuing culpability in the production of 
     weapons of mass destruction.
       However, Iraq is not yet cooperating fully with the UN 
     inspectors as the Security Council demanded. Saddam may well 
     be up to his old tricks, moving weapons or other 
     incriminating evidence from place to place. The history is a 
     sordid one.
       If there is clear evidence that Iraq is continuing an 
     illegal program to produce weapons of mass destruction; or 
     has submitted inaccurate or false information regarding its 
     nuclear and biological programs; or has secret programs, 
     facilities, or stockpiles; then the administration should 
     make it public.
       And, if there is hard evidence of weapons of mass 
     destruction, then the Security Council must take immediate 
     action to compel compliance, including using force, if 
     necessary. And I would support such action.
       But the massive increase of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf 
     appears to be an indication that regardless of the findings 
     of the UN inspectors the President may well intend to use 
     military force to bring about regime change in Iraq. This is 
     deeply disturbing.
       I strongly believe that the arms inspectors must be allowed 
     to complete their task, to report back to the UN Security 
     Council, and the Security Council must then consider action.
       In the meantime, Iraq is effectively contained and 
     prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction. It is 
     not an imminent threat to its neighbors or the United States. 
     And there is no need for precipitous action under these 
     circumstances.
       A preemptive unilateral attack against a Muslim nation may 
     well create a divide between the U.S. and the Muslim world so 
     deep and wide that it will bring with it negative 
     consequences for decades.
       There are efforts being made behind the scenes by Arab 
     nations to achieve a peaceful regime change. These efforts 
     should be given the opportunity to succeed. What is the rush 
     to bring the tragedy of war?
       If Iraq can be successfully contained and disarmed and war 
     can be avoided, if the deaths of innocent people can be 
     prevented, then that must be our course. War must be a last 
     resort.
       Let me make a few comments about one additional issue 
     before discussing North Korea: A solution must be found to 
     the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, and soon.
       Unfortunately, it has not been, in my view, a high enough 
     priority for the administration. As long as the Israeli-
     Palestinian crisis escalates, the risks of catastrophe remain 
     unabated. Yet, one of the few things that most Israelis and 
     most Palestinians agree on is that the United States is a 
     unique third party capable of advancing the peace process.
       Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is clearly in the 
     U.S. national interest and would produce broader benefits as 
     well: it would increase cooperation in the Islamic world in 
     the war on terror; it would help us secure assistance from 
     the Islamic world in pressuring Saddam Hussein to disarm; and 
     it would restore credibility and momentum worldwide for 
     American diplomacy and influence.
       Right after the January 28th Israeli election, I believe 
     President Bush should name a very senior and experienced 
     person to be his personal emissary dealing with the Israeli-
     Palestinian crisis. The Israeli-Palestinian problem demands 
     more creative and higher-level attention by the United 
     States. It must be solved. Time is running out.
       Now, with regard to North Korea I believe the situation is 
     more menacing than that in Iraq. It presents a substantial 
     and real danger to stability throughout the Asia-Pacific 
     region and could ultimately directly threaten the United 
     States.
       North Korea possesses a much more advanced nuclear weapons 
     program than Iraq, and it has been assessed that North Korea 
     may already possess nuclear capability.
       North Korea also has a missile delivery system, and once 
     the third stage of the Taepo Dong missile is completed and 
     operational, North Korea could strike any place in the United 
     States.
       Also, North Korea has: expelled all international 
     inspectors and equipment; withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Treaty; restarted its plutonium processing 
     plants; moved thousands of plutonium rods out of locked safe 
     storage back into the nuclear production line; and is 
     enriching uranium for nuclear weapon purposes.
       The country and leadership are isolated, the economy is a 
     failure and even the most basic necessities of life such as 
     electricity, sanitation, and food are lacking. People are now 
     starving by the thousands.
       I had the opportunity in December to helicopter to the 
     Demilitarized Zone, DMZ, where General LaPorte, our 4-star 
     general in command, pointed out North Korean troop 
     concentrations: 70 percent of the 1.2 million-man North 
     Korean army is deployed along the DMZ, with enough heavy 
     artillery to be able to substantially damage Seoul, killing 
     millions. And there are reports that nerve agents may also be 
     deployed along the DMZ.
       Since my visit in December, the 800,000 forward-deployed 
     North Korean troops have been placed on high alert and are 
     prepared to move instantly.
       North Korea, isolated with its failing economy, has clearly 
     placed its total focus, not on feeding its people, but in 
     developing its military, its missiles and its nuclear 
     capability, all in defiance of treaties it has signed.
       I believe the blame for precipitating this crisis lies 
     squarely with North Korea, which clearly violated the agreed 
     framework by beginning the surreptitious development of 
     nuclear capacity.
       But it also appears clear to me that the administration's 
     handling of events on the Korean Peninsula over the past 2 
     years, as well as its broader foreign policy rhetoric and 
     statements, have served, ironically, to fuel North Korea's 
     paranoia and made the situation much more difficult to 
     manage.
       First, the administration failed to endorse President Kim 
     Dae Jung's ``Sunshine Policy'' when President Kim visited the 
     White House in March 2001. This move was perceived as a major 
     humiliation in South Korea, helped set the stage for the 
     rising tide of anti-Americanism, and was seen as a sign by 
     the North that the administration was intent on a policy of 
     isolation and confrontation.
       Second, in January of 2002, the administration issued its 
     Nuclear Posture Review, which states that there are certain 
     situations in which the United States would contemplate and 
     perhaps engage in a first use of nuclear weapons. One of the 
     scenarios in this review included North Korea.
       Third, in September 2002 the administration issued its 
     National Security Strategy, which states that the United 
     States reserves the right to strike preemptively, even 
     without an imminent threat, if the administration believes 
     another nation poses a threat to the United States.
       And fourth, including North Korea as part of the ``axis of 
     evil'' in the 2002 State of the Union address, along with 
     statements by the President saying that he loathed Kim Jong 
     Il, calling him names, and saying that he deliberately 
     starved his own people, all helped fuel North Korea's 
     paranoia and belligerence.
       Meanwhile, one other troubling aspect of the Korean crisis 
     is the growing anti-American sentiment in South Korea.
       The new President, Roh Moo Hyun, won the election in an 
     atmosphere of anti-Americanism. And in some quarters, our 
     37,500 troops stationed there are increasingly unwelcome.
       The anti-American sentiment has been galvanized by the 
     accidental deaths of two young Korean girls, run down by a 
     large tank-like tracked vehicle on a narrow road while the 
     girls were walking to a birthday party. A major outcry arose 
     after the two servicemen driving the vehicle were acquitted 
     in U.S. military court on charges of negligent homicide.
       The situation on the Korean Peninsula offers no easy 
     solution.
       So I am pleased to see that after so many weeks of refusing 
     to negotiate directly, the administration has now opened the 
     door to high level discussions. This is a welcome and 
     imperative change. It is the only acceptable course. And its 
     result may well determine the effectiveness of diplomatic 
     efforts in this crisis.
       There must be direct and multilateral discussions between 
     North and South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia as well as 
     the United States. The solution is everyone's business and 
     the responsibility of the leaders of all nations.
       Much of what the administration has done since September 11 
     to safeguard U.S. security interests has been necessary and 
     right. I have supported these efforts.
       I believe that the administration has been correct in 
     identifying the threat of the proliferation of weapons of 
     mass destruction, especially if they fall into the hands of 
     terrorists, as one of the top challenges facing U.S. foreign 
     policy.
       But in Iraq and North Korea, the administration has been 
     pursuing two very different, and at times contradictory, 
     approaches, which, in the process, has confused and angered 
     many of our closest friends and allies.
       With Iraq, the administration is beating the drums of war. 
     With North Korea, it is pursuing multilateral diplomacy and a 
     peaceful resolution of the crisis.
       But these two crises are similar in many respects, and thus 
     the question remains: can diplomacy be an effective tool in 
     this new century to stay the ambitions of those states which 
     seek nuclear weapons? Or is the use of force our only 
     recourse?
       I believe that the administration's current policy towards 
     North Korea is more likely to produce a peaceful and 
     acceptable outcome than its policy towards Iraq.
       If you look at the different approaches to each of these 
     problems alongside the administration's broader foreign 
     policy statements and rhetoric, it is no wonder why serious 
     questions about America's role in the world have been raised 
     both here and abroad.
       The administration's emphasis on unilateral action; its 
     dismissal of international law, treaties, and institutions; 
     and its dominant focus on military power as put forward

[[Page 1716]]

     in the Doctrine of Preemption, the rationale for unilateral 
     preemptive attack; the National Security Strategy, which aims 
     to make the United States the preponderant and 
     unchallengeable military power in the world; and the Nuclear 
     Posture Review, which states scenarios in which the United 
     States would engage in a first use of nuclear weapons, even 
     against the non-nuclear states, are particularly troubling.
       Taken at face value, these positions mean the United States 
     holds for itself the right to strike another sovereign 
     nation, to wage war, if you will, even in the absence of an 
     immediate threat, but based solely on the perception of a 
     sufficient threat.
       Despite administration efforts to downplay the actual 
     wording in these documents, they are, in my view, 
     unnecessarily provocative and dangerous.
       I believe now, more than ever, that Teddy Roosevelt had it 
     right, ``walk softly and carry a big stick.''
       As a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush spoke 
     eloquently about the need for America to conduct itself with 
     humility in international affairs. I remember him saying 
     during the second Presidential debate on October 11, 2000: 
     ``If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a 
     humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation 
     stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and 
     that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength 
     in a way that promotes freedom.''
       Yet, one of the things I have found in the trips I have 
     made abroad in the past year is that our allies across the 
     globe increasingly believe that the United States is anything 
     but humble.
       They feel the United States does not listen to its allies, 
     has shown disregard for treaties and international 
     organizations, and has become increasingly unilateral.
       As a result, we have lost much of the good will that 
     followed the 9/11 attacks.
       The preeminent position America occupies in the world today 
     rests only in part on our military and economic strength.
       In large part, it is also due to our moral influence and 
     our unquenchable quest for truth, justice, and freedom, our 
     belief that ``all (people) are created equal, that they are 
     endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, 
     that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of 
     Happiness.''
       And regardless of whether one views Iraq or North Korea as 
     the bigger threat, one thing they both have in common is that 
     the United States is much more likely to be successful in 
     dealing with them and safeguarding our own national security 
     interests if we are able to act in concert with our friends 
     and allies.
       So we stand today at an important decision point in the 
     history of our Nation and the world: Will the United States 
     turn away from the successful bipartisan tradition of 
     supporting a world ordered by law, and pursue instead a 
     unilateralist path?
       Or will we recommit our Nation to the achievement of 
     workable democratic structures, to law and diplomacy, and to 
     constructive leadership that produces coalitions to bring 
     about just solutions?
       There may be times, when all else fails, that unilateral 
     American military action will be necessary, and Iraq may be a 
     case in point. However, in my view, that has not been 
     established. War must only be a last resort.
       But the spirit of our foreign policy should not be the 
     establishment of American hegemony, any more than we would 
     want to see the establishment of al-Qaida's vision of a new 
     radical fundamentalist Islamic world.
       More importantly, I strongly believe that a foreign policy 
     oriented towards cooperation and consultation will, in the 
     long run, prove to be a more effective guarantor of U.S. 
     national security than one of unilateralist impulse and 
     confrontation.

                          ____________________