[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Samuel R. Berger on U.S. Global Lea



Subject: Samuel R. Berger on U.S. Global Leadership Role 

25 October 1999 
Byliner: Samuel R. Berger on U.S. Global Leadership Role 
(Op-Ed by President Clinton's National Security Adviser) (1050)

(Following is an Op-Ed article written by Samuel R. Berger, President
Clinton's National Security Adviser. It is adapted from his address to
the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City on October 21. There
are no republication restrictions.)

Internationalism versus Isolationism in U.S. Foreign Policy
By Samuel R. Berger

(The author is President Clinton's National Security Adviser.)

We are at a defining and paradoxical point in the debate about
America's role in the world.

America's strength and prosperity are unrivaled. Our leadership has
never been more needed or in demand. And most Americans understand we
must provide it; their pride in our achievements makes them not
triumphant but confident in our ability to shape, with others, a world
that is more democratic, prosperous and at peace.

Yet our internationalist tradition increasingly is being challenged by
a new isolationism that would bury America's head in the sand at the
height of our power and prosperity. There are leaders in both parties
who reject this view -- including many who had legitimate concerns
about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but who wanted more time to
have them addressed. But with the Senate's hurried defeat of the
Treaty and the meat axe Congress has taken to our foreign affairs
budget, we must fact the reality that it no longer is a fringe view.

It's tempting to say that the new isolationism is driven only by
partisanship. But that underestimates it. There is a coherence to its
view of the world and of our role. Here is what I believe its elements
are, and why I believe they are wrong.

First: Any treaty others embrace, we won't join. Proponents of this
view are convinced treaties are a threat to our sovereignty and
continued superiority. That's what they say about the nuclear Test Ban
-- though we have already stopped testing, though the Treaty helps
freeze the global development of nuclear weapons when we enjoy an
enormous strategic advantage.

We agree it would be foolish to rely on arms control treaties alone to
protect our security. But it would be equally foolish to throw away
the tools sound treaties offer: the restraint and deterrence that
comes from global rules with global backing.

Second: Burden sharing is a one way street. Proponents of the new
isolationism rightly insist that Europeans fund the lion's share of
reconstructing the Balkans. But then they balk at doing our part. They
oppose American involvement in Africa's wars, but will not help
others, like Nigeria, when they take responsibility to act. And they
will not pay America's part of the cost of UN peacekeeping missions,
even to uphold peace agreements we helped forge. This year, Congress
has cut our request for peacekeeping by more than half.

That is dangerous. If we don't support the institutions and
arrangements through which other countries share the responsibilities
of leadership, we will bear them alone.

Third: If it's over there, its not our fight. Foreign wars like those
in Bosnia and Kosovo may hurt our conscience, but not our interests,
and we should let them take their course.

We agree America cannot do everything or be everywhere. But we also
cannot afford to do nothing, and be nowhere. The new isolationism of
1999 fails to understand what the old isolationism of 60 years ago
failed to understand -- that local conflicts can have global
consequences.

Fourth: We can't be a great country without a great adversary. Since
the Cold War ended, the proponents of this vision have been nostalgic
for the good old days when friends were friends and enemies were
enemies. For the role of new enemy number one, they nominate China.

We should not look at China through rose colored glasses; neither
should we see it through a glass darkly, distorting its strength and
ignoring its complexities. We must pursue our national interests
vigorously with China, but treating it like an enemy could become a
self-fulfilling prophesy.

Fifth: Billions for defense but hardly a penny for prevention. This
year's spending bill for most of our foreign programs, which the
President has vetoed, fails to fund a vitally needed expansion in our
effort to keep nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union from
falling into the wrong hands. It does not fund our pledge to help
relieve the debts of impoverished countries that are finally embracing
freedom and reform. Astonishingly, it does not fund our commitments to
the Middle East peace process growing out of the Wye Accords.
Meanwhile, the Congress is trying to add $5 billion to the defense
budget this year that our military says it doesn't need.

The President has requested the first sustained increase in military
spending in a decade. But he has also argued that if we underfund our
diplomacy, we will end up overusing our military -- precisely the
outcome critics say they want to avoid. Those who fear that our
military may become overextended should make it their first order of
business to restore decent levels of funding to the programs that keep
our soldiers out of war.

America faces many challenges in the world in the coming year: seizing
opportunities for peace from the Middle East, to the Balkans, to
Africa; weaving Russia and China more closely into the international
system; combating terror and the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, from the former Soviet Union to Korea to the Gulf,
launching a new global trade round, promoting debt relief, supporting
hopeful democratic transitions from Nigeria to Indonesia, and others.

There is room for debate about our approach to all these issues. But
we should agree that in an era of growing interdependence, we cannot
afford a survivalist foreign policy -- which relies on military might
alone to protect our security, while neglecting all else.

America must maintain its military and economic power. But we must
also maintain our authority, built on the attractiveness of our
values, the force of our example, the credibility of our commitments
and our willingness to work with and stand by our friends. The
President wants to work with Congress to preserve a foreign policy
that does just that.

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State)