Nearly a decade ago, the Cold War came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism. At the time, you could almost hear the collective sigh of relief of the American people--from coast to coast.
But the post-Cold War world has turned out to be more dangerous and complex than many Americans expected. It has not been possible to relegate foreign affairs to reduced status. For me this fact was reinforced recently when I met with a number of leaders in Western Europe and Russia.
In these post-Cold War years change has been the one constant. Country after country adopted the forms of democratic capitalism, but some have not understood how its content must work to improve the lives of ordinary people--not just a few people who could get very rich in a short period.
Who would have thought, a decade ago, that the threat of hundreds of Soviet missiles raining down on us would be replaced by the threat of one missile targeted on one U.S. city by a rogue state, or deadly viruses or poison gas smuggled here in a suitcase?
These threats have become real, and we can only imagine how much worse they would have been if the United States, as the one remaining superpower, had not stood in the way. Yet, our ,government is still having difficulty adjusting to that new reality of being the world's only superpower, as reflected in its ambivalence toward the projection of American power in the pursuit of vital national interests.
The well-known American impulse for generosity led us to a failed commitment of military resources to so-called "nation-building" in Somalia. We sent a task force to Haiti, ostensibly to help the people there create a democratic framework from which to create prosperity, but today the people of Haiti are just as poor and exploited as ever.
In the former Yugoslavia, we and some of our European allies are trying to impose a multiethnic society where one never existed. We sent our troops to Bosnia to help stop aggression. In step with the political correctness of the day, our government was obsessed from the outset with a so-called "exit strategy," when a "success strategy" should have been our first priority. And how can we ever succeed when we blur the basic difference between victim and aggressor?
The "exit strategy" was to have our troops home within a year. That was three years ago. They are still mired there. We still do not have a definition of "success" for the region--only vague concepts of it. Once our troops do come home, who doubts that fighting will break out again?
In Kosovo, endless talk with Serbia's dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, has produced nothing but broken promises. Once again, NATO is threatening to take action, including putting troops there as "peacekeepers." If our allies want to send in troops, fine. Our role should be to give them logistical and air support. This tiem, "no American boots on the ground."
Today, we have members of our armed forces in some eighty countries around the world. At the same time, our national defense budget--as a percentage of our gross domestic product--is lower than it was at the end of World War H. In short, we are asking our armed services to do more with fewer resources.
We need to be selective about our rnissions. When we act, we must be decisive and committed to a clear standard of success. And, our troops must have nothing less than the very best training and equipment our nation can provide.
No one ever said it would be easy being the world's only superpower and its principal exponent of democratic capitalism. While we may not always feel comfortable in this role, it is ours and will be for quite some time to come.
A common phrase is that "We cannot be the world's policeman." While it is true we cannot be the cop on every comer, it is also true that if we were not "on the beat" in some of the world's high crime areas, no one else would be. And, if we don't continue going into those areas, sooner or later the high crimes will be in our neighborhood.
To set forth our foreign policy priorities for a new century we must meet three basic requirements:
• Credibility;
• The willingness to lead, and...
• A strategic vision.
Having credibility means that what we say will be believed. When we are credible, potential adversaries will fear us and friends and allies respect us. It also means conferring with those friends and allies before we issue threats to adversaries. What it does not mean is making repeated threats of action then backing off, as we did repeatedly with Iraq and not long ago with Serbia's offensive in Kosovo.
You'll recall that NATO planes streamed across the Serbian sky, symbolizing the danger Milosevic faced if he did not comply with a deadline to pull his forces out of Kosovo. At the last minute, he said he needed another ten days to withdraw. Our reply was, "Okay." He is still not complying and we are once again threatening air strikes. Will it turn out once again to be bluster?
George Shultz once told me that Ronald Reagan's most successful foreign policy initiative was when he fired the striking air traffic controllers. You'll recall that they threatened to strike. President Reagan said that if they didn't return to work within a specified period of time, they would be terminated. They struck and he fired them. George Shultz told me, "As Secretary of State, it made my job a lot easier. Every foreign leader I dealt with knew we had a president who would do what he said he would do." It's still true that we build credibility by saying what we mean and meaning what we say.
There are occasions for studied ambiguity, as in the case of China and Taiwan. For years we have insisted that the possible reunification of these two Chinese societies is a matter for them to determine--by peaceful means. Taiwan says this can only happen when the mainland becomes a democratic society. The Communists, meanwhile, pursue their strategy of trying to isolate Taiwan internationally. On his trip to China last year, President Clinton weakened our position of studied ambiguity--a position developed by administrations of both parties--when he enunciated and thus endorsed the Communists' three "nos." These are: No support for an independent Taiwan; No "one China, one Taiwan"; and no membership for Taiwan in any international organization requiring statehood. Mr. Clinton went well beyond anything his predecessors had said. It was unnecessary and appeared to tilt the playing field, something we had assiduously avoided since 1979 when we first extended diplomatic recognition to Beijing.
Our credibility is perishable, but our responsibilities are not. One of these responsibilities has been to lead the Western alliance for half a century. NATO has been a remarkable success. It held the Soviet threat in check while the countries of Western Europe built prosperous economies.
Now, NATO has expanded to include the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Others in the former Soviet bloc are anxious to be included in the alliance. The door is open. Further NATO expansion must be handled with great care, partly because of the cost of expansion, partly because of NATO's relationship with Russia, and partly because the time has come to rethink NATO's mission and redefine it for a new century.
Our goal remains a Europe that is whole, free, prosperous and secure. Toward that end, I believe we should energetically explore the idea of a transatlantic free-trade area; an economic arrangement that would reach out to new and potential allies in Central and Eastern Europe, while opening fresh -possibilities for American companies and their products. This is an initiative that could strengthen our ties with friends on the western half of the continent and, once and for all, make transatlantic trade wars a thing of the past.
NATO was created and maintained for the purpose of checking Soviet ambitions toward Western Europe. Today, that threat is gone, but it has been replaced by new threats, such as regional ethnic wars, terrorism and rogue states in possession of weapons of mass destruction. In Bosnia, NATO --with the U.S. taking the lead--initially went in to perform the new role of separating warring groups. In Kosovo, two NATO members, France and Germany, went further. Of the 1,600 NATO troops in the so-called Extraction Force, France offered 800 and Germany 200.
A recent joint declaration by British Prime Minister Blair and French President Chirac signaled a move toward a European command structure within NATO. This is another instance of our European partners taking on wider responsibilities for regional security. Some Americans worry about what they see is growing divergence from the U.S. I see it as a healthy sign.
While we nurture the mutually indispensable transatlantic link, we should welcome the assertion of European integration, not view it negatively. How often have we heard that "it's about time the Europeans take responsibility for their own security"? I think should see their steps in that direction as a positive sign, not as a challenge to our leadership or our national objectives.
There are two reasons for this. One is our lead in productivity. Our rate keeps growing and is ahead of that of any of our European partners. The other reason is that Europe faces some real challenges. Bureaucracy and entitlements that are far beyond those in this country are embedded in the laws of Germany, France and other Western European countries. These act as a drag on venture capital and a brake on the creation of new jobs. Despite bold talk by left-leaning European governments that they will lower their countries' high unemployment rates, don't bet on it.
The EU nations will do what they can to solve their problems. What we can do to be better partners with them in the Western alliance is to confer with them before we act. In my meetings in Bonn, Paris and London, there were frequent calls for greater consultation--not calls for veto power on American action, but rather a wish not to be blind-sided--and especially not for domestic political reasons in the United States. One senior French leader put it succinctly when he said, "Cooperation and consultations between us were never better than during Desert Storm." We took the lead, but brought our allies in on our thinking and planning.
This April, NATO will mark its 50th anniversary with a major conference in Washington. This presents an important opportunity for reflection, as well as for new ideas about NATO's role in the next century. As a force comprised of peace-loving nations either fully democratic or in active transition to that status, NATO could become a troubleshooting organization to answer the threats of terrorists and rogue states both inside and outside its area. And, European states should recognize the stake they have in out-of-area threats.
With history in mind, Some of Russia's neighbors view it as a potential threat; hence their desire to join NATO. When you talk with a variety of Russian leaders, however, as I did in Moscow, you a get a rather different perspective about NATO. Their line of reasoning is that NATO, after all, was formed as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. Now, if it expands to include the Baltic states and other immediate neighbors of Russia--but not Russia--should it not be seen as having hostile intentions toward Russia? You and I know that is not the case, but we need to explain it--often--to the Russians.
The time may come when NATO, with a revised mission, will consider inviting Russia to join, rather than having it standing to one side in the so-called "Partnership for Peace." Meanwhile, when Russia and NATO have common interests--such as thwarting terrorism--we should make common cause. Gradually, this process can help reduce old anxieties--both east and west.
This recent trip was my first to Russia in twelve years. In Moscow I was again struck by the evidence of personal freedom. People come and go as they wish. Wide boulevards, once almost devoid of vehicles, now have rush-hour traffic jams. There are attractive new stores. Newspapers and television news shows flourish. And, the variety and patronage of cultural events is impressive.
It is said that if Russia has a success story, it is Moscow, yet misery characterizes life in many other parts of the country. Nevertheless, progress -is being made. Boris Nemtsov, a dynamic former provincial governor and First Deputy Prime Minister last year, tells of the important beginnings of federalism under President Yeltsin--a shift from a completely centralized economy controlled from Moscow. Governors are now elected and half the taxes collected at the local and provincial level stay there instead of going to Moscow.
Historically, the Russian people have shown great strength and stoicism in the face of adversity. A new round of it began last August. The government defaulted on bonds sold to foreign investors. Domestically, this was a case of too few rubles chasing too many entitlements. The government was paying these entitlements with borrowed money. It finally ran out of cash to redeem its bonds. The currency was devalued, followed by money-printing. Prime Minister Primakov said he would continue to print money to meet basic needs. If he does, it is a recipe for trouble.
The Primakov government has submitted a budget that would be balanced were it not for foreign loans to be repaid. He will need a restructuring of loans in order to keep it balanced. Meanwhile, lenders see a country with serious corruption in government; insider privatization sales; fortunes made by a few, but prosperity spread not nearly as wide as it must be to build a vigorous middle class. These problems are aggravated by capital flight.
Russia's over-borrowing has caused serious problems and, with it, a setback for basic reforms. In the near term we may see some protectionist trade measures, renationalization of some privatized industries and other seemingly regressive moves.
Given all this, some say, forget about Russia; we have less trade with them than with the Dominican Republic. While that is true, Russia is a hug country and its stability involves our own ,e vital national interests.
One success story in our relationship with Russia is the Nunn-Lugar program, by which we provide approximately $400 million a year and technical experts to help the Russians dismantle nuclear weapons and safely store the resulting fissionable material.
The Russian leaders I met with represent a variety of constituencies and views. I heard much pessimism, but also hope that the future will be better if new ideas are brought to bear. Russia still lacks private land ownership. It is said that the city of Moscow is considering selling some municipal property to private owners this year in a pilot program.
One leader told me that, in addition to the need for private land ownership, Russia needs a sound, fully trustworthy judicial system and a civil society, in the sense we in the West understand that term.
All of these leaders are seeking a new definition of Russia's role in the world. There are differing approaches. Some see a westward-orientation--to Europe, NATO and the United States. Others talk of a concept they call "Eurasia," in which Russia becomes the linchpin of a new power equation. The recent overtures by the Russian government to China and India for a tripartite relationship are a symptom of this. So is the proposed union of Russia and Belarus.
Still others see the "Eurasia" idea as primarily a bridge of commerce between Europe, Asia and North America. For example, Alexander Lebed, the former general and now governor of Russia's largest province, talks of "Eurasia" in terms of an air bridge between Alaska and Siberia by which thousands of cargo flights a year could reduce shipping time of goods between North America and Europe. Among other things, this would require a significant improvement in Russia's air traffic control system.
One leader said to me that the United States lacks a post-Cold War strategy toward Russia, yet he added that the Europeans and Japan will do nothing without U.S. participation. Thus, it is U.S. leadership that is essential.
We can do a better job of understanding the Russians. Theirs is a major country deserving of respect, despite the difficult times they are going through. Indeed, our strategy for U.S.-Russian relations must flow from recognition of the fact that it is in our interest that Russia be an economically strong friend rather than a weak and truculent competitor. There are a number of areas where Russian and U.S. interests coincide. For example, controlling the spread of nuclear weapons, guarding against terrorism, maintaining the safety of nuclear power plants, combating drug trade and fighting organized crime. And, it is important to remember that, as long as Russians aspire to have a full democracy with a market economy, the genie that Gorbachev let out of the bottle a more than a decade ago won't go back in.
In the Middle East, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process is on "hold" until Israel holds elections. Meanwhile, a positive action was the PLO's recent recantation of elements of its charter calling for the destruction of Israel. A step backward would be a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood by Yassar Arafat on May 4. That is an issue that must be left for the final status talks. Chairman Arafat should be applauded for his renunciation of terror in recent years. It makes peace possible. But we must continue to stand by our democratic ally Israel, and continue to insist that Palestinians accept the position that violence must now and forever become a political too] of the past. Only this can make peace a lasting reality. The death of King Hussein silences an important voice for peace in the region. The example of his statesmanship should continue to serve as in inspiration to both sides--that past animosities can be laid aside if one looks ahead instead of through a rear-view mirror.
As for Iraq, it is high time the United States makes its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, to be replaced by a democratic government. If we're serious, this objective requires a clear strategy. I recommend the following steps: Identify and back a government in exile. Then, openly support that government. Meanwhile, continue steady enforcement of the "no-fly" zones. Fourth, provide humanitarian aid for Saddam's endangered opponents in the north and south.
In Africa, several countries are in turmoil. Regional efforts are made to quell this and our focus should be on encouraging investment where it has a good chance of producing results. Ghana and Botswana come to mind. And, of course, South Africa, despite problems of increased crime, still has the potential for being the economic engine that can pull many of its neighbors forward. Throughout the sub-Saharan Africa there continues to be a great need for medicines, vaccines and technology for pure water supplies.
In Asia, American leadership has gone off course. Japan--the world's second largest economy--is Asia's economic engine. It is in everyone's interest-especially ours-to see that Japan comes out of its slump. The Japanese are very slow to make fundamental changes, but the government of Prime Minister Obuchi appears finally to be coming to grips with the crisis of Japan's hide-bound banking system and the need for substantial tax cuts.
It has not helped that for months U.S. officials badgered and scapegoated the Japanese. President Clinton's failure to visit Japan after his China trip last year--a curious concession to Chinese demands--was seen as a snub. Months later he made a quick visit to Tokyo, but damage had already been done to Japanese confidence in U.S. commitments to the region.
The situation has been aggravated by two other developments. One involved the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan and the missile firing by North Korea. This drew a great deal of U.S. attention away from the Japan relationship. The other development was Mr. Clinton's unrestrained embrace of the Chinese leadership.
This gave rise to Japanese concerns that the U.S. intends to play China off against Japan for the purpose of wringing trade concessions from the Japanese. While this may not have been the motive behind the Clinton trip to China, it demonstrated that the administration is not sensitive to the thinking of our most important ally in Asia. I can tell you from my days as Governor, when I went to Japan often to negotiate auto plants for our state, that every word and action has a meaning.
While China can neither be ignored nor expected to do just as we wish, it is not our ally in any sense of the word. Nor can China provide meaningful investment capital to other nations in the region. Japan is that provider. China does have the potentiality for becoming a major military power. This frightens its neighbors, especially the Japanese. The Chinese have been relentless in their quest for technology that will give them military hegemony in the region. And, as we learned from elements of a Congressional select committee's investigative report, the transfer of American satellite technology to China has compromised our national security.
Nowadays, almost any store you visit will be filled with products marked "Made in China." The stores like these products because they can be competitively priced and the profit margins are high. But the downside is a lopsided trade imbalance. Last year, we imported $202 billion-worth of goods from China, but exported only $90 billion. It is said that the Chinese government considers an eight percent annual growth rate as essential to keep civil peace. Whatever their growth target, economically the Chinese need us much more than we need them. We should not forget that.
Then there is the matter of human rights. Beijing treats any efforts at democratization as subversion and takes the position that it is none of our business. That simply does not wash. The Chinese on Taiwan are proof of that. They achieved the world's first democratic Chinese society by replacing authoritarianism with a vigorous, multi-party democracy. There, everybody is free to express any opinion he or she wishes. Even the phase "independence for Taiwan" won't land anyone in jail.
But, on the mainland, they insist on a single-party, and free speech is anathema. Recent] , four dissidents were given long prison sentences for advocating such shocking things as forming a political party and a labor union. So much for Mr. Clinton's talk-show gimmickry in Shanghai and his embrace of China as some sort of evolving democracy.
We cannot ignore China, but there is no reason to get cozy with it either. If and when they improve their human rights conditions, we should encourage them. Meanwhile, we should trade with them, but we should remember that they will always act in what they consider to be their interest. We must do the same.
Here in our own hemisphere, an obvious example of U.S. leadership is the outpouring of help-public and private--for the countries of Central America that were devastated by Hurricane Mitch. A massive rebuilding program is in order, and we should lead the way in making it happen. In Brazil, we must hope that the IMF's efforts to stabilize the economy succeed. If they don't, there will be a big price to pay. Already, our steel makers and soybean farmers are feeling the competitive effects of Brazil's currency devaluation In these remarks, I have looked at American leadership from several angles and in several areas of the world. We have an administration whose successes and failures we can measure. Overall, it has reacted to events rather than anticipated and steered them. This may be due in part to a desire to get intelligence information that only reinforces its suppositions rather than challenges them. The administration seems to have an aversion to getting information that might cause it to make decisions it would rather defer (or hope would go away if ignored).
But this administration is in its final two years. What should be our vision for a new global strategy in a new century? I believe it should have three main elements: One is military strength and national security geared to future threats. Another is free and open trade. A third is support for and expansion of democratic movements wherever they are.
Regarding military strength and national security, two aspects are required. One is the ability to project military strength anywhere in the world rapidly and effectively. Our armed forces do a remarkably good job of this when you consider that the Clinton administration has let military spending--in constant dollars--slip to its lowest point since just after World War II. Equipment is either wearing out or becoming obsolescent much faster than the defense budget allows for its replacement. Mr. Clinton's call for increased defense spending does little to change this situation. Furthermore, he advocated military pay raises only after the problem of personnel retention had become a crisis.
If we are going to police hot spots, our armed forces need to be properly paid and they must have the best possible equipment. The appropriations and procurement processes are long and slow. The time to start a program of rebuilding is now.
Along with the ability to project our forces is the need for an actual defense of our nation against attack. We no longer think in terms of a cloud of Soviet nuclear warheads raining down on us. Our concern now is about the terrorist with the suitcase carrying vials of Sarin or biological agents or a nuclear device. Our concern must be also for the rogue state, desperate to draw its people's attention away from domestic disasters by aiming a missile at one of our cities.
For the suitcase-carrying terrorist, we need more effective screening procedures at our points of entry. And, we need better coordination of training of emergency personal who would have to deal with biological or chemical attacks.
We need a missile defense system, as well. The upgraded theater-version of the Navy's Aegis system, which is expected to be operational within about two years, should become a building block for a national missile defense.
We know from last summer's Rumsfeld Commission report that we cannot expect to have the luxury of several years' warning before a rogue state is in a position to blackmail us with a weapon of mass destruction. Yet, W. Clinton does not plan to decide before next year whether to build a system by the year 2003. This year--now--is the time make that commitment.
The Clinton Administration is obsessed with the outdated ABM treaty. It has been amended before and will probably have to be amended again to accommodate this strategy. If this cannot be accomplished, we must be prepared to withdraw from it, while making it clear to the Russians that our missile defense is not intended to protect us against-them, but against the new type of threat I have described.
We must move ahead on the trade front. We have become an exporting nation and that fact will not change. To improve our ability to engage in trade, the president needs so-called fast-track authority. This simply means that our negotiators will have the ability to complete agreements with trading partners without coming back to Congress to approve it a paragraph at a time. Presidents of both parties have had such authority for years, but in the last two year members of the president's own party have been holding it up, bowing to union and other protectionist pressures.
Along with making trade as free as possible between nations, we must have a moral component to our vision. We must rededicate ourselves to the spread of representative democracy in every comer of the globe.
As communism collapsed, many formerly one-party states adopted the forms but not the substance or spirit of multi-party representative democracy. Old habits die hard. In many of those countries government workers were underpaid; hence, bribes and corruption were common. In many there was little faith in the honesty or efficiency of government; therefore, tax-paying was ignored. We know from the American experience that honest government and tax compliance go hand-in-hand.
We must use every means at our disposal to help countries that are going through this transition. Investment is one way. Another is encouraging private and semi-public organizations that teach democratic political and economic principles to expand their work. Democratic capitalism, with its self-restraints and its checks and balances has brought the greatest prosperity to the largest number of people of any system yet devised. We must demonstrate its benefits every day and we must show them to the world.
It has been said that this century--the 20th--has been The American Century. Perhaps so, but I've got my eyes on the next one and I think the 21st can be another-American Century. America is a land that is never finished, but always beginning anew. That is why so many people aspire to what we have. We are the world's only superpower, and we should act it. That means setting objectives, communicating them, and carrying out plans to achieve them. In short, we should lead the world willingly, not reluctantly. The world will be richer for it.
