27 January 2003
Byliner: Beating Terror, by Senator Richard Lugar
(The Washington Post 1/27/03 Richard Lugar op-ed) (1170)
This byliner by Senator Lugar (Republican-Indiana) first appeared in
the Washington Post January 27, 2003, and is in the public domain. No
republication restrictions.
(begin byliner)
Beating Terror
By Richard Lugar
In the 16 months since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States
has taken a number of steps -- in the military, security and
intelligence areas -- that greatly improved its ability to fight the
war on terrorism. What it has not done is develop a plan or
demonstrate the political will to win the war.
Military action will be necessary to deal with serious and immediate
threats to our national security, but the war on terrorism will not be
won through attrition -- particularly because military action will
often breed more terrorists. To win this war, the United States must
assign to economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic
priority we assign to military capabilities. What is still missing
from American political discourse is support for the painstaking work
of foreign policy and the commitment of resources to vital foreign
policy objectives that lack a direct political constituency.
Since the end of the Cold War, our ability and will to exert U.S.
leadership outside the confines of a military crisis have been badly
eroded by inattention, budget cuts and increasing partisanship. In
2001 the share of the budget devoted to international affairs was a
paltry 1.18 percent. We are conducting diplomacy on a shoestring in an
era when embassies are prime terrorist targets and we depend on
diplomats to build alliances, block visas to potential terrorists and
explain the United States worldwide.
A 2001 General Accounting Office report found that significant
staffing shortfalls plague the more than 150 diplomatic posts
considered to be hardship locations. Many jobs are being filled by
Foreign Service officers serving two or three grades higher than their
experience warrants. Staffing shortfalls also lead to abbreviated
language training. U.S. foreign assistance in constant dollars has
declined about 44 percent since its peak during the Reagan presidency.
The United States devotes about one-tenth of 1 percent of its GNP to
economic assistance.
Contrary to the media-inspired illusion that foreign policy is
determined by a series of decisions and responses to crises, most of
the recent failures of U.S. foreign policy have far more to do with
our inattention and parsimony between crises. For example, in 2002,
amid speculation about terrorists acquiring weapons of mass
destruction, inaction by Congress effectively suspended for seven
months new U.S. initiatives to secure Russia's immense stockpiles of
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Congressional conditions
also have delayed for years a U.S.-Russian project to eliminate a
dangerous proliferation threat: 1.9 million chemical weapons housed at
a rickety and vulnerable facility in Russia.
The United States has repeatedly failed to exert the leadership
necessary to bring multilateral treaties in line with important U.S.
interests. The result has been problematic agreements such as Kyoto,
the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the International Criminal Court
Treaty, all of which lack sufficient support in the United States and
divide us from our allies. Partisan posturing continues over whether
to support these treaties, when the real question is why the United
States -- occupying a seemingly unrivaled position in the world --
cannot achieve agreements that would be supported both at home and
overseas.
Meanwhile, between 1995 and 2002 the United States -- economic engine
of the world -- effectively constrained itself from entering into
significant new trade agreements by failing to pass trade promotion
authority. This monumental political failure hurt U.S. workers and
businesses, perplexed allies, ceded markets to competitors and
weakened development overseas.
In the Iraq crisis, military capability has never been in doubt. If we
decide to go to war, we will depose Saddam Hussein's regime. What have
been in doubt are factors determined by our diplomatic strength, our
alliance relationships and foreign perceptions of the United States.
Can we line up the support of the U.N. Security Council? Can we secure
basing and overflight rights? Can we generate international support
that will mitigate anti-American reactions in the Arab world? In
short, the unknown in our Iraqi policy depends on U.S. foreign policy
capabilities. It depends on programs and personnel that are funded at
about $26 billion per year, an amount equal to 6.7 percent of our
defense budget.
The Iraq debate in Congress focused on whether the United States
should make concessions to world opinion or pursue its perceived
national security interests unencumbered by the constraints of the
international community. But this was a false choice. National
security decision-making can rarely be separated from the constraints
of the international community, if only because our resources and
influence are finite. Our security depends not on clever
decision-making about when to go it alone but on executing a potent
foreign policy that ensures the international community will be with
us in a crisis.
In the coming months, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will
explore five foreign policy campaigns necessary to win the war against
terrorism:
-- Strengthen U.S. diplomacy. Congress and the president must commit
to robust, long-term investments in diplomats, embassy security, and
effective foreign policy communications strategies and tools. We also
must gear up our foreign assistance programs.
-- Expand and globalize the Nunn-Lugar program. Since 1991 the
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has worked effectively
to safeguard and destroy the immense stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction in the former Soviet Union. We need to redouble these
efforts and expand the process to all nations where cooperation can be
secured.
-- Promote trade. Free trade is essential to strengthening our
economy, building alliances and spreading the benefits of market
economics. Expanding trade in the developing world is essential to
building the conditions that dampen terrorist recruitment and
political resentment.
-- Strengthen and build alliances. The stronger our alliances, the
more likely we are to have partners who will share financial burdens
and support our efforts against terrorism.
-- Reinvigorate our commitment to democracy, the environment, energy
and development. The United States must reassert itself as a positive
force for democracy and development. This must include improving
energy supplies worldwide to free up resources in developing nations
and reduce the dependence of the world economy on Persian Gulf oil.
International environmental protection is required for successful
economic development in many regions. Environmental concerns are
linked to the dismantling of weapons, our ability to build alliances
and political attitudes toward trade expansion.
These five campaigns will require not only money but also political
leadership from the Bush administration and Congress. We must explain
to the American people why these campaigns are as critical to the war
on terrorism as our military efforts. Without them we will relegate
ourselves to fighting a holding action in which time is on the side of
the terrorists.
(The writer, a Republican senator from Indiana, is chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)
(end byliner)
(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
|
|
|
