Office of the Press Secretary
(Palo Alto, California)
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 1, 1998
As Prepared for Delivery
REMARKS BY SAMUEL R. BERGER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MAY 1, 1998
"The Price of American Leadership"
Some Congressional actions bear upon our nation's most immediate
needs. Others touch off broader debates about how we view the world
and our country's role within it. In the weeks ahead, Congress faces
a choice on an issue that does both. It can send the message that
there still is a strong bipartisan foundation for an active U.S. role
in the world -- as it did last night with the overwhelming vote to
admit Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO.
It can reaffirm our vision of an America committed to its
obligations, confident in its power, courageously leading the world.
Or that vision can begin to blur -- a victim of complacency and of
fear.
In the emergency supplemental that passed yesterday, Congress left
out two critical parts of the President's original request --
satisfaction of our long overdue debt to the United Nations; and
payment of our share of support to the International Monetary Fund.
Each constitutes a necessary investment in our national security -- and
each will pay off, many times over.
But these two items are only the more visible tip of a profound
debate that must concern all Americans -- whether we will remain
engaged abroad and maintain our leadership in the world, or turn our
back and retreat within our national borders.
The outcome is by no means certain. Americans, willing to assume
global responsibility when their safety is at stake, are equally prone
to turn inward once that safety appears to have been assured.
World War I, World War II, the Cold War -- in each instance, an
existential threat to our vital interests and our fundamental values
constituted a clarion call to action. And in each instance, we
responded brilliantly.
In the wake of the Cold War, we are not presented with a single,
overriding threat. Instead, we face a range of threats -- dangerous,
but diffuse. Some believe the time therefore has come once again to
"tend to our own business." The argument presents itself in different
shades, but at its core is the perception of the world essentially as
a burden -- as something to be dealt with only if necessary, ignored
whenever possible.
This view is premised on the belief that the foundations of our
wealth and security are exclusively home-grown, that there is little to
gain from foreign engagement and much to surrender -- in resources
expended, sovereignty diluted, jobs or even lives lost.
That view, in my judgment, suffers from two basic fallacies -- first,
that we can isolate ourselves from the world, and second that we should.
Globalization -- the process of accelerating economic, technological,
cultural and political integration -- is not a choice. It is a growing
fact.
It is bringing citizens from all continents closer together --
allowing them to share ideas, goods and information at the tap of a
keyboard.
It is a fact that will proceed inexorably, with or without our
approval. It is a fact that we ignore at our peril. Our workers and
businesses will suffer if foreign markets either collapse or lock us
out; terrorists and drug traffickers ignore national boundaries even if
we don't; and the highest domestic environmental standards won't
protect us if we can't get others on board, for their carelessness
threatens us as much as our own.
In short, our citizens have a direct stake in the prosperity and
stability of other nations -- in their open markets, in their ability
to combat international crime, in their clean waters and clean air.
Let's be clear: the alternative to engagement is not withdrawal
from the world; that is an impossibility. The alternative is a passive
submission to powerful forces of change -- all the more ironic at a
time when our capacity to shape them is as great as it has ever been.
In short, we cannot isolate ourselves from the world. But just as
important, we should not want to. Of course, military strength remains
a prerequisite of American power. Without American power, American
security is vulnerable, American interests are at risk, and American
diplomacy is undercut. Yet more than ever before, our strength also
grows out of our involvement in the world. Our engagement not only can
fend off an existential threat -- it reduces the likelihood of such a
threat emerging in the first place. That's what the international
community is doing in Iraq, seeking to disarm Saddam Hussein before he
threatens the region again.
And our engagement not only protects our safety -- it enhances our
prosperity. That's what our aggressive trade policy has achieved --
opening markets to American products and services throughout the world.
The bottom line is this: our nation's economic performance is
unrivaled, our military might is unmatched, our political influence is
unsurpassed, very much because of -- not in spite of -- our engagement
in the world.
We have moved from a zero-sum game in which the Soviet Union's gain
was our loss to a logic of interdependence in which our interests often
are served by the strength of former adversaries -- not by their
weakness; in which our prosperity is advanced by the vitality of our
economic partners -- not by their frailty.
The strategy put in motion by President Clinton flows from this
fundamental understanding.
We seek to create and strengthen a broad system of international
arrangements built around our core values and interests -- democracy,
open markets, free enterprise, peace and stability.
Our military alliances, global arms control regimes, market opening
trade agreements, support for economic and political reform in emerging
nations, partnership with a democratic Russia, strategic dialogue with
China, involvement in regional disputes like the Middle East or Irish
peace processes, efforts to reach out to and expand trade with Latin
America and Africa -- all grow out of this logic. These arrangements
may take the form of international institutions, multilateral treaties,
or even bilateral agreements, but in each instance the objectives are
the same:
First, to promote American interests and values by entangling
nations in a web of mutually reinforcing arrangements that maximize
both the benefits of compliance and the costs of transgression.
Membership in an expanded NATO requires adherence to basic democratic
principles: the rule of law and civilian control of the military.
Joining the WTO requires tearing down trade barriers, reducing
tariffs, eliminating quotas. Benefiting from IMF loans entails
dismantling protected and subsidized sectors that have created domestic
sanctuaries impenetrable by foreign competitors.
Continued participation in the Organization of American States
involves adherence to democratic principles of government.
Our second objective is to leverage our power and influence,
wherever possible, through the multiplier of collective action. Our
contributions to international institutions add up to only a fraction
of their total resources -- for example, every dollar we provide to
the IMF is matched by $5 provided by others.
Yet our contributions enable us to lead these critical institutions
and put us in a position to accomplish goals that make a difference for
all Americans.
United Nations forces keep the peace in areas vital to our
interests, from the Balkans to the Persian Gulf, from Haiti to the
Middle East. The International Atomic Energy Agency protects our
citizens from the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The World Health
Organization defends us from the spread of infectious disease. This
is a small sample of the goals that we either could not pursue alone
or would have to pursue alone -- but more expensively and far less
effectively.
Our third objective is to preserve America's role as a balance
wheel for stability.
No other nation has the muscle, the diplomatic skill, or the trust
to mediate disputes, nudge opposing sides to the negotiating table or,
when appropriate, help enforce the terms of an agreement. Israelis and
Palestinians finalize their agreement on the White House lawn. Bosnians
huddle at Dayton. Haiti's dictators yield to our military threat. The
parties in Northern Ireland look to America for help in their courageous
quest.
Not all roads lead to Washington, nor should they.
But when important American interests and values are at stake, we
need the ability and stature to be a decisive impetus for peace and
security -- whether through diplomacy, economic incentives or force.
Our nation faces a profoundly important choice. We can continue on
the course charted by the President, working with others to seize the
opportunities of the global era while seeking to avoid its perils,
maintaining our strength to act on our own when we must, or we can seek
refuge in an illusory withdrawal.
We can seek to steer change to our advantage -- or be engulfed by
it.
This choice presents itself starkly in the decisions on whether to
grant the President fast track authority to negotiate trade agreements
or to fully fund our international affairs budget.
And it presents itself starkly in the two specific requests now
before the Congress -- to pay our share of support to the IMF and to
pay our overdue UN bills.
Nowhere is globalization more apparent, nor its effects more direct,
than in the economy. Trade is twice as important in our domestic
economy now as it was when I entered the work force. It has fueled
one-third of the sustained growth we have enjoyed these past five years.
Today, exports support 12 million American jobs that pay on average 15
percent more than others. An economic downturn among our trading
partners can have serious consequences for our workers, our farmers, our
businesses, our stockholders. Conversely, by shoring up our partners,
encouraging structural reform, tearing down trade barriers, we boost
our own economic fortunes.
The IMF plays a central role in steering the global economy in the
right direction. The Fund works with countries at risk to shape
effective reform programs that strengthen financial systems, increase
market access, improve transparency, and reduce corruption and overly
incestuous relations between banks, governments and industry. In times
of crisis, as we experienced in Mexico or Russia and now are
experiencing in Asia, the IMF provides critical assistance that can
restore financial stability. And it takes the heat for the tough
decisions that governments need to make -- and sometimes want to blame
on others.
All of this is in America's fundamental interest -- and can be
preserved if we agree to pool our contribution with that of other IMF
members.
Think for a moment about the cost of not having a strong and
effective IMF. The countries in Asia are our customers -- if they
can't buy, we can't sell. They are our competitors -- if their
currencies depreciate, they undercut the competitiveness of our own
goods. And they are our security partners -- their instability could
bring crisis to a region where we have both critical national security
interests and 100,000 U.S. troops to protect them.
More generally, by undermining the IMF we weaken the only
multilateral institution capable of inducing the reforms that will make
recovery self-sustaining.
In sum, even if the IMF were to cost us something, it would be well
worth the deal. But in fact, because the IMF acts as a sort of
international credit union, our contribution to the Fund has not cost
the American taxpayer a single cent.
What we have been able to achieve economically through the IMF, we
have been able to achieve on so many other fronts through the United
Nations.
The benefits to the American people are tangible, measured in
efforts to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials, increase the
safety of nuclear plants, and promote the safe disposal of nuclear
waste, humanitarian programs that reflect our deepest values, like
caring for refugees, vaccinating children, sheltering the needy,
international standards that make the skies safer for travelers and
food safer for consumers. All this -- and more -- comes at an annual
price tag of roughly $4 per American -- about the price of a happy
meal at McDonald's, and a fraction of what it would have cost us to
achieve these goals on our own.
Some say that the UN is badly in need of reform and that we should
not pay our dues until that occurs. It is. Working with Congress, we
have helped the UN achieve more reform over the past half decade than
in the 45 years that preceded it.
Last year, we developed a three-year plan with broad bipartisan
support to encourage continued reform while finally paying our debts.
Unfortunately, last fall and then again this week, a small group of
representatives chose to link passage of this plan to unrelated
legislation on international family planning.
As a result, we risk the single best chance to put our UN debts
behind us -- and to put the UN on the right path for the 21st century.
Again, do not think only in terms of the cost of paying our debt to
the UN -- think in terms of the cost of not paying it. It will harm
collective efforts to deal with emerging threats that cut across borders
-- from terrorists to organized criminals, drug traffickers, and
environmental damage.
It will be a body blow to our international credibility, hobbling
our diplomats in ways large and small, undermining our central message
that nations need to live up to their commitments. And, by next
January, it may even lead to the loss of our voting rights in the UN
General Assembly -- an institution born on our soil out of the vision
of Americans like Roosevelt, Truman and Acheson.
Beyond these fundamental interests, there also is a basic moral
principle: America pays it debts. We should pay the UN what we owe.
By acting now to support the IMF and pay our dues to the United
Nations, Congress can reassert its determination to preserve America's
leadership in the world. It can send the message that our nation is
confident; it will master the forces of globalization -- not be
mastered by them. And we can continue to build on the past five years'
list of accomplishments -- in Haiti, Bosnia, Russia, China and
elsewhere.
Will the United States survive and thrive if Congress chooses the
alternative course? Of course. Our people are far too resilient and
far too resolute for it to be otherwise.
But we risk awaking to a different America in a different world.
And neither America nor the world will be able to figure out how we
frittered away so rich an inheritance, how we renounced so commanding
a position, how we squandered such bountiful opportunities.
So let's not weaken our own hand. Let's make the wise investment
in American leadership that will help keep our nation at the pinnacle
of our power as we enter the 21st century.
# # #
** uhuh **
The President said he is reducing taxes.
uhuh.
Congress says they are balancing the budget.
uhuh. Sez who?
Smile
and Force Congress to
Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with
$$ Money System Honesty for Us People. $$
We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.
Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.
Forest Glen Durland, CEO. 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081
Voice: (408) 867-4410; Fax: (408)868-9446; Click here for email.
Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com