27 September 2001
Text: Hyde Says Long-Term U.S. Foreign Policy Strategy Essential
(Key U.S. legislator says finding terrorists is first task) (2540)
The chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives' International
Relations Committee says that as the United States advances efforts to
battle global terrorism, it must also develop a long-term foreign
policy strategy.
"Even as we respond to the challenge of terrorism, my great hope is
that we will also use this new-found awareness of the world's dangers
to plan for the future mindful of the task at hand, aware that our
opportunity to do so may fade and vanish altogether," Representative
Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois) said September 26 in remarks to the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency. "The choice is clear: We can
either shape the future or simply accept what a capricious fate may
deal us."
He said the most immediate task is to search for and destroy the
terrorists who participated "in these cold-blooded assaults" September
11th in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania that killed more than
6,000 people. He admitted that the United States was unprepared for
these attacks, despite warnings that may now seem obvious in
retrospect.
"Our unwillingness to deal with the world as it is, rather than as we
hoped it might be, has greatly encouraged those who seek to do us
harm," Hyde said. "I fear we may have forgotten the great lesson of
the past century: that the price for tolerating aggression is paid in
blood and destruction."
He said the United States may encounter many more surprises unless it
begins preparing now.
"The larger question before us is how will we use the enormous power
we currently possess to secure the future for our country and the
generations to come," he said.
Hyde said the principal problem is that the United States lacks a
coherent long-term foreign policy strategy, and has no practical plan
for shaping the future to advance and defend U.S. interests.
"Instead of a firm course, I see drift," he said. "Instead of shaping
the evolution of events in pursuit of long-term objectives, we have
been busy responding to problems as they arise, guided by an agenda
that has been thrust upon us by circumstances rather than one we have
ourselves constructed."
While there have been many successes, that alone does not make for
foreign policy, he said.
Hyde said there is a rising danger that the relationship between the
United States and Europe, which he described as "the very foundation
of the post-war international system," may be unraveling.
Mexico, he said, is currently undergoing "the most hopeful revolution
in its long history," and its transformation cannot be allowed to
fail.
In Asia, Hyde said, the United States must have a long-term strategy
to make certain that U.S. goals there fit into U.S. global objectives.
"A similar inquiry can be constructed for every region: the Middle
East, South Asia, Latin America, Africa," he said. "And there are a
long list of other concerns: terrorism, the many assaults on human
rights, the stability of the international financial system, and on
and on, as many as one would care to list."
He said that despite the current level of U.S. power, the United
States must not believe it can resolve every problem. A major part of
any long-term strategy must include "what we cannot do, what we choose
not to do, and to ensure that others take up their responsibilities."
Following is the text of Hyde's remarks:
(begin text)
Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representatives
Henry J. Hyde, Chairman
September 26, 2001
With the attack on the United States, we have once again been awakened
to the reality that we have mortal enemies. They do not desire
compromise; they are not interested in negotiation. Our suffering does
not give them human pause; indeed, they celebrate it. They do not seek
our mere defeat. They are intent on our destruction.
Our most immediate task is to hunt down and destroy those who
participated in these cold-blooded assaults. However, because our
purpose is not merely to extract revenge but to ensure our security,
we cannot stop there. Instead, our goal must be to strike at and
eliminate all those engaged in planning future horrors. We must accept
that we have many implacable enemies in this world, and we must not
shrink from doing what we need to do to disable or destroy them. I
hope that we have now taken that lesson to heart.
Without question, we were unprepared for what took place, despite the
many warnings that now seem obvious in retrospect. Our efforts must
now concentrate on ensuring that we are fully prepared for whatever
assaults may yet come. But in examining the reasons for our
unpreparedness, one which seems particularly prominent to me is the
false sense of security that has arisen from our enormous political,
military, and economic strength. That great strength gave many the
fatal illusion that we were invulnerable, that our enemies were
vanquished, that we faced no real challengers, and that we were free
to act or react as we saw fit. The End of History, some termed it. But
our unwillingness to deal with the world as it is, rather than as we
hoped it might be, has greatly encouraged those who seek to do us
harm. I fear we may have forgotten the great lesson of the past
century: that the price for tolerating aggression is paid in blood and
destruction.
The implications of this attack are so extensive that they will occupy
the attention of our government and society for years to come. But in
addressing the newly prominent threat posed by terrorism, we must not
make the mistake of forgetting that the United States has many other
interests around the world and that it faces many other threats. We
may encounter many more unpleasant surprises unless we begin to
prepare for them now.
Even as we react to this crisis, the larger question before us is how
will we use the enormous power we currently possess to secure the
future for our country and the generations to come. The wealth of
opportunities we currently possess are not permanent; our choices may
in fact become increasingly narrow as the world evolves. We may have
once believed that we would always be above the fray, untouched and
untouchable by the forces of destruction at work in this world. But
that has now been demonstrated to be a dangerous illusion.
Once again, our agenda has been set for us instead of by us. Once
again, we are responding to the world instead of shaping it.
The principal problem, the one which we must begin to address in a
more disciplined manner, is that we have no long-term strategy, no
practical plan for shaping the future and thereby no plan for
advancing and defending our interests, a task that must include
identifying and disabling our potential opponents before they can do
us harm.
Nearly a decade has passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and
without question the world is a vastly better place because of it. But
as that empire fell, it took with it what had been the central
organizing principle of our foreign policy for the last half-century.
Now I have read and heard many learned discourses and debates on what
the new U.S. agenda should be, but I confess that I have yet to see a
compelling path identified, much less mapped out, regarding how the
U.S. should proceed, how we should use the power we currently possess
to bring into being the world we might want.
Instead of a firm course, I see drift. Instead of shaping the
evolution of events in pursuit of long-term objectives, we have been
busy responding to problems as they arise, guided by an agenda that
has been thrust upon us by circumstances rather than one we have
ourselves constructed.
That is not to say that many splendid things have not been
accomplished in the past decade - the dismantling of the Soviet empire
and the liberation of the eastern half of Europe; the expansion of
NATO; the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement; the
continued spread of democracy; the resolute defense of our allies and
the containment of our enemies around the world.
But these and other successes cannot substitute for a long-term
vision. Not only do we risk leaving the future to chance, we risk
losing fundamental things we have grown accustomed to taking for
granted. Let me illustrate my point with a couple of examples.
I believe we are watching the beginnings of an unraveling of the
Atlantic relationship. By the Atlantic relationship, I mean something
more than just NATO. I mean the entire complex of connections between
North America and Europe, the close identity of interests, that we and
our allies have constructed out of the ashes of World War II. This
relationship is the very foundation of the post-war international
system, the irreplaceable center on which the stability of the globe
depends. It is from this core that the democratic and economic
revolution now transforming the world has spread.
That relationship is fraying. Slowly, quietly, it is being hollowed
out, even as the responsible officials solemnly reaffirm their
commitment.
Closer to home, there is Mexico. Our two countries have kept each
other at arm's length for virtually our entire histories, and both
countries are the poorer for it. But we cannot escape the fate that
geography has decreed for us; there is no other country on the planet
which has the potential to affect us so broadly, so immediately.
Whether or not our respective governments choose to cooperate, our
societies have already begun to interweave themselves, and we are in
the process of transforming one another. Mexico is currently
undergoing the most hopeful revolution in its long history, the
success or failure of which will have a profound impact on the United
States. They cannot be allowed to fail.
Now, the President is to be congratulated for his understanding and
recognition of Mexico's importance, signified by his use of the term
"a special relationship" to characterize our ties, a designation
hitherto reserved only for our closest allies. But when I look more
closely at how we actually intend to assist Mexico's entry into the
ranks of the developed world, I have trouble identifying any guiding
strategy on our part.
As for Asia, that giant continent veers between great hope and great
chaos. China's rise to a world status commensurate with the immense
resources of its people is a certainty. That rise, and the aspirations
which must accompany it, cannot but impact the system we and our
allies have brought forth and maintained in East Asia since World War
II. Our hope is that democracy will, in time, tame this potential
challenge, but there is no guarantee that we will win that race, and
we may be faced with difficult decisions much more quickly than our
planners have assumed. In Asia, one can point to many areas of
progress, and many areas of concern, and I have no doubt that our
attention will be sorely taxed by the current and future problems that
region will unfailingly produce. But again I ask: what is our
long-term strategy toward this region? How do our goals there fit into
our global objectives?
A similar inquiry can be constructed for every region: the Middle
East, South Asia, Latin America, Africa. And there are a long list of
other concerns: terrorism, the many assaults on human rights, the
stability of the international financial system, and on and on, as
many as one would care to list. There are far more than enough to
overwhelm our attention and to keep us and our successors busy
indefinitely. So I say again: what concerns me most is that, in the
crush of the present, there is little or no evidence of the
development of a long-term strategy, no identification of a clear
destination toward which we should be heading. Instead, for all of our
undoubted power, we often seem to be at the mercy of the currents,
carried downstream toward an uncertain destination instead of moving
toward one of our own choosing. And while our attention is transfixed
on the latest crisis that CNN has decided must be dealt with, the
underlying structures are shifting, and historic opportunities fading.
Despite our power, we must resist the temptation of believing we can
fix every problem, indulge in every wish. Part of our strategy must be
to decide what we cannot do, what we choose not to do, and to ensure
that others take up their responsibilities.
I raise this issue not because I have a ready solution to offer, but
because I fear that no one else does, either. I'm not sure anyone in
our government is even thinking about one. But a practical, long-term
vision is sorely needed; it is a prerequisite that we dare not
continue to put off until some more convenient time. I say this not as
a Republican; indeed, there is no hope of success unless it is broadly
bipartisan. To accomplish that, we will need consensus in the Congress
and in this city, as well as the support of the American people.
So, even as we respond to the challenge of terrorism, my great hope is
that we will also use this new-found awareness of the world's dangers
to plan for the future, unhurried, uncoerced, but mindful of the task
at hand, aware that our opportunity to do so may fade and vanish
altogether. The choice is clear: We can either shape the future or
simply accept what a capricious fate may deal us.
The terrorists' actions have imparted a new realism to policymakers in
Washington and to American society as a whole. Many illusions have
vanished. In their place is a new willingness to acknowledge the
dangers that the world presents us and a new resolve to take action to
counter them. I think that gives us a good place from which to begin.
America has faced many enemies in her history, and she has triumphed
over them all. I have no fear that we shall do so again with the newly
prominent enemy of terrorism. But our task does not stop there. The
new century will present us with many unpleasant surprises and many
dangers, some familiar, others wholly new. We cannot simply wait for
these to ambush us; we must prepare ourselves to meet them on our
terms and not those of our enemies.
A century ago, Britain stood majestically at the height of her power;
within forty years, the knife was at her throat, and she survived only
because the United States was there to rescue her. But we must always
remember that there is no one to rescue us. That is why we must think
long and hard about how we can use the opportunities that Providence
and the labors of two centuries have provided us to so shape the world
that the need for rescue never occurs.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
