11 January 2000
Text: Speaker of House Hastert on Trade, National Security
(Cites Republican support for China accession to WTO) (3790) Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Dennis Hastert says the Republican leaders of Congress are preparing to move legislation as soon as possible to facilitate China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). In a January 10 speech in Chicago before the Mid-America Committee, Hastert defended his congressional Republican colleagues against charges of isolationism made by Democrats. He asked rhetorically whether, on trade issues, many Democrats are themselves isolationist. "On issues of international trade, the major question is almost always the same -- can the President deliver a strong majority of House Democrats in favor of free trade legislation?" Hastert said. "Continued organized Democratic resistance to free trade legislation threatens to chill economic growth in the United States and undermine U.S. economic relations abroad," he said. Hastert said that, besides free trade, the necessary elements for U.S. national security today are a strong defense, strong intelligence capability and policies aimed at terrorism and illegal drugs. He cited Colombia, the top source of illegal narcotics in the United States, as an example of the new national security challenges. "While the outcome in Colombia will pose no direct threat to our territorial integrity, the loss of this key South American democracy would pose a direct threat to all Americans," Hastert said. He said the U.S. Congress will support a comprehensive strategy to defend Colombia against its internal threats including aggressive diplomacy, military assistance, continued military cooperation, intelligence activities and counter-drug assistance. "But time is not on Colombia's side," he said. Following is the text of Hastert's speech: (begin text) Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to be here with you today. It is hard to believe that we are already 10 days into the new millennium. I see some familiar faces here today and looking around, I would say none of you looks a millennium older to me. Although I must say that after a year as Speaker I'm beginning to think I feel a millennium older! Last year, everyone seemed to find the phrase "new millennium" pretty catchy, including an acquaintance of mine who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. I used to joke that every time he used the phrase "getting ready for the new millennium," it seemed to cost the taxpayer money, spawning a host of new spending. I am hoping that this year the President adopts our belief that Americans want us to help creating new opportunities for them -- rather than new spending programs for the government. Economic prosperity, individual hard work, lower taxes, reduced government spending and regulation -- these are the essential ingredients of genuine growth and opportunity in America. But as tempted as I am talk about our domestic agenda for the year ahead, it is time to turn to an equally important part of our Agenda 2000 -- America's role in the world. If I were in Washington today, this would be described as a "foreign policy speech." But instead I want to talk with you more broadly about "America's involvement in the world" -- which to me is much more than just traditional diplomacy. It also involves our military and intelligence strength and our economic involvement in the world through free trade. Today I want to take on the "I" word -- isolationism -- directly. It has become fashionable for some to try and label the Republican Party as the party of isolationism. I think that is wrong. I believe my party is firmly rooted in a mainstream American tradition that looks upon what President Washington called "foreign entanglements" with caution and skepticism but is prepared to act when our national interest demands. I believe that the Republican Party understands that America must be involved in a global world. I believe my party has shown real leadership in engaging that world economically through free and open trade. And I believe my party has demonstrated the willingness to prepare for military intervention and to carry it our when necessary. But I also think my party is very much in touch with the American people's common-sense belief that using our power -- especially our military power -- ought to be infrequent and judicious. Restraint in the use of American power is not isolationism. It is consistent with the best traditions of American history. No matter how powerful we are militarily and economically -- and we are. No matter how powerful our ideas -- and ideas like freedom and democracy were the most powerful ideas in the 20th century and will grow only stronger in the 21st century. Despite all this, we cannot -- and we should not -- try to impose our will every place and on every occasion in the world. In short, even Americans cannot solve all the world's problems. Certainly we should always be a "beacon on the hill" -- a shining light of freedom and a leader by example. Ronald Reagan reminded us that words do matter. And there are times when we must go further -- we must intervene and act militarily -- either alone or in concert with our allies. But it is knowing when to act and when not to act that that is the tricky question. Americans are a compassionate people and it is easy in an age of television to think we should take action just because we see something going on we don't like. But there will always be things we don't like. Much as we pray for a world free of strife and injustice, it is not likely to be achieved soon. I think Americans instinctively understand that if we always attempt to correct what we don't like through intervention, no matter how well meaning, we will dissipate our strength and undermine what I believe is our fundamental purpose as a government, to protect our nation and its people. I would argue that sometimes a decision not to act is not isolationism; it is instead prudence and fully in the mainstream of American tradition. How then do we decide? I would argue that the imperative -- to protect our nation and its people -- has traditionally been the standard that has guided our decision to involve ourselves, especially militarily. When we, as Republicans, ask the President to explain to us why intervention is in our national interest -- why such intervention is necessary to protect our freedom and our way of life -- those are not the questions of isolationists? Rather they are the voices of commonsense Americans. It is a legitimate question that is fully consistent with traditional American thinking. As some of you know, in my life before Congress I was a history teacher. I have often thought about how the simple desires of our founding fathers -- the freedom to determine one's own destiny, combined with a hunger for justice, opportunity and liberty -- still distinctly shape how Americans view themselves and our nation's place in the world. Our country was founded by individuals fleeing government oppression, searching for economic opportunity, hungering for freedom of worship, and most important, desperately seeking a land where they could be the masters of their own destiny. They also brought with them a fierce respect for the rights and freedoms of others. As a result, Americans have always believed that our power should be used cautiously and judiciously. Yet when true tests have confronted free people, whether the guns of August in the First World War or the stomping cadence of Hitler's armies in the 1940s, America has been there, and Americans have paid the inevitable price. But Americans have never demanded nor felt the need to occupy the world's stage. Nor have they sought to carry a burden that others have refused to carry themselves. Americans are a free people who regularly make sacrifices on behalf of others. But as a free people, Americans expect others to do their fair share. And as a free people, Americans are deeply committed to determining their own destiny. Therefore, it is not surprising that Americans almost always hesitate to exercise their military power. In fact I have found that they prefer instead to husband it with great care and use it only reluctantly after exercising wise restraint. Speaking to you honestly, I must admit I am sometimes saddened by how often these traditions are easily abandoned or ignored by others in Washington. And I am concerned that we may be entering a period in American politics in which adherence to these principles is branded as "isolationism." I believe that Americans cannot help but look to the future with optimism and excitement. This is truly a great time to be an American. For we Americans are a truly gifted people who by hard work and good fortune live in the freest, most prosperous country in the world. But our good fortune is also the result of the sacrifices and determination of those who came before us -- men and women, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters who landed on America's shores with little more than a tattered bag. They were the ones that shaped America in the old millennium. These strangers from many different lands, many different races and many different religions performed a genuine miracle in human history. They united together, voluntarily, and became Americans. In doing so they blessed us with their hunger for freedom, their sweat, their tears, and their undying love for a land in which every great man was once a common man. Slowly and deliberately, day by day, year by year, lifetime by lifetime ... they built a great and free country. It is this hard-earned legacy that we take with us into the new millennium. It is this legacy which we have been charged to defend and protect. And when our day is done, we must silently but proudly pass it to our children strengthened and unscathed -- our cherished gift to their bright future. For this simple reason, I believe protecting the security of our nation and the American people remains the most fundamental and important responsibility of our still young democracy. And this heavy burden falls squarely upon the shoulders of those elected by the people to carry out this charge -- the President and the Congress. It is my belief that diplomacy is indeed a very important instrument used to ensure our nation's security but I would also like to highlight certain principles which I believe should guide our diplomatic efforts. First, America should never concede to a dictator his right to govern, and we should never legitimize through our actions the right of an authoritarian government to rule oppressively. I am very proud that we never conceded dictatorial authority over the captive nations of Eastern Europe. American policy toward countries like Iraq, North Korea and Sudan should never convey a sense of legitimacy nor permanence to these regimes. I believe that democracy has triumphed in many parts of the world today because Ronald Reagan was courageous enough to stand in the House of Commons in 1982 and state a simple truth - the Soviet Union was an "evil empire." I am convinced that this message shook authoritarian and communist regimes to their very roots, a clear clarion call that their end was near. Second, in the early 1700s the eminent French diplomat Francois de Callieres wrote a memorable book on the art of diplomacy. He stressed two simple rules -- a good negotiator should never speak untruths or make promises he couldn't keep. These simple rules should also guide executive branch relations with the Congress. When it comes to issues of national security, the heavy presumption in the Congress -- in both political parties -- is that we must stand fully behind our President. But this strong presumption of support is nonetheless dependent upon trust. Consider, for example, the promise that U.S. troops would be out of Bosnia in one year. It was a promise not kept. Or consider statements repeatedly made by senior administration officials that North Korea's nuclear weapons program was stopped, when the opposite was actually true. Such an approach undermines trust and as a result hard questions are justifiably asked. These questions are not "isolationism," but rather reflect a lack of certainty and trust in the Administration's policy, its purpose and objectives. But diplomacy is incomplete and ineffective if other equally important national security tools are marginalized or neglected. A determined and active commitment to all the elements of a broad national security policy is the only way our government can achieve the ultimate goal of protecting our nation's security. And this can only be accomplished if the President and the Congress have a full array of national security tools at their disposal. First, we must ensure that our nation's defense is second to none, which means a continued commitment to modernization, readiness and military quality of life and retention issues. Second, our intelligence capabilities must remain unrivalled, fully modernized and tailored to meet the new threat requirements. Third, new challenges and threats to our nation's security have emerged in recent years, such as terrorism and illegal drugs. We must have realistic policies and capabilities to respond to these serious challenges. Finally, free and unencumbered trade is an essential element in ensuring our nation's security. It is an engine for democratic change around the world. I am firmly convinced that active and effective U.S. participation in global events -- whether in support of diplomacy or the deterrence of aggression -- is only possible if our military forces are modern, capable and technologically superior. Our uniformed men and women must be motivated, well trained and fully prepared to respond if the nation calls. In the past year, the Republican-led Congress kept its word to the American people and significantly increased defense resources. The procurement of new equipment, as well as the replacement of used equipment and munitions, were key Republican priorities. Congress also passed legislation providing a 4.8-percent pay raise for military men and women as well as other important quality of life initiatives designed to retain these highly trained professionals. In the past five years we have effectively changed the entire defense debate in Washington. First-term attempts by the Administration to de-emphasize the importance of a strong defense were thwarted. Today, Republicans, supported by a growing number of Democrats in Congress, have forced the Administration to rethink its defense policy. The result is a Republican-led defense policy that supports an active and effective American leadership in global affairs. The real victory in the new millennium is that Republican defense priorities are today's dominant defense themes in such critical areas as procurement, readiness, quality of life and missile defense. Congress has also been on the forefront of reinvigorating our nation's intelligence assets and capabilities. These capabilities provide absolutely essential support to U.S. diplomacy and other national security objectives throughout the globe. Without these assets in many cases it would be impossible for the United States to act with confidence in responding to international crises. The Republican led Congress has worked with our Democratic colleagues in the Congress to reshape our intelligence community and to provide it with the resources and tools to effectively carry out its critical missions. Indeed, it was my predecessor, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who personally led a major effort to improve our nation's intelligence capabilities -- an effort that earned him the deep gratitude of this highly professional community. New, ominous threats have arisen in recent years to American national security interests. Illegal drugs and increasingly sophisticated terrorists have added a totally new dimension to American global engagement. It is a Republican-led Congress that has highlighted these issues and pressed to increase resources to combat these insidious threats to democracy. Today there are over 800,000 heroin addicts in the United States, over 3 million cocaine and crack addicts, and over 42 percent of our of our nation's 12th graders have tried illegal drugs in the past year. Recently, in one year alone over a half a million Americans ended up in hospital emergency rooms because of drug overdoses. Approximately 1.4 million drug related deaths occurred last year. These are the casualties in a silent war here in America -- a war that is ravaging not only Americans, but also people in every part of the globe. The corrupting forces of narco-terrorism now threaten entire countries. Colombia is even now tottering under the pressure of narco-guerrillas and their allies in the drug cartels. The Republican-led Congress has aggressively pursued an activist U.S. role on virtually every continent to defeat these new armies of darkness. And nowhere has it been more determined in this battle than in Colombia where democracy literally sways in the balance. The dark shadow of terrorism is another critical area that demands American engagement. Once again, the Republican led Congress has strongly supported efforts to thwart terrorist groups and their leaders, as well as to constrain terrorist countries like Iran from receiving dangerous weapons of mass destruction. In this case a broad bipartisan consensus exists in the Congress to pass legislation which would attempt to terminate Russia's nuclear and missile cooperation with Iran. The Administration however threatens to veto this measure. Broad foreign policy issues abound, each of which demands American attention and engagement. Critical areas where America's national security interests are directly at stake are Russia, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and China. Developments in the Middle East and the former Yugoslavia directly affect the security of our allies in those regions and warrant America's strong and steady involvement. And there are a growing number of nations like Colombia or Afghanistan where terrorist and narcotic traffickers have joined forces. I must apologize, but time does not permit me to speak to each of these areas or problems, but I would like to address the current situation in Colombia. Colombia is an excellent example of the new national security challenges facing our nation. While the outcome in Colombia will pose no direct threat to our territorial integrity, the loss of this key South American democracy would pose a direct threat to all Americans. Colombia is already the number one source of illegal narcotics in the United States. The ascendancy of narco-terrorists will cripple our efforts in Colombia to stop this traffic in human grief. An effective response to the current crisis in Colombia will involve all elements of an effective national security policy. Aggressive diplomacy, military assistance, continued military cooperation, intelligence activities and counter-drug assistance will all be necessary if we are to defeat this growing threat. The Republican led-Congress stands ready to support such a comprehensive strategy, but time is not on Colombia's side. The final critical element in an effective national security policy is sustained support for free and unencumbered trade. In the broad world of international relations, without question the most dynamic and active area is international commerce and trade. No other aspect of America's relations with the world can match the millions of interactions carried out each day in countries all over the globe by American businessmen. As an agent for democratic change and economic growth and individual prosperity, trade has no equal. Free trade has transformed state run economies and empowered the individual in countries where the individual has no other source of power. Free trade is the road to democratic change. As such it is one of the most powerful tools for weakening and changing authoritarian regimes. Trade also fuels our own economic prosperity and provides wealth and opportunity to all Americans. At the same time, trade helps fund our defense, counter-drug, counter-terrorism and foreign policy objectives. And when it comes to trade, one must ask: Is the Democratic party the true "isolationist" party in America today? After all, the Republican-led Congress has repeatedly taken the lead on key trade issues such as NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement], fast track, China NTR [normal trade relations or most-favored nation treatment] and most recently Africa/CBI [Caribbean Basin Initiative] trade legislation. And despite the recent disaster in Seattle, the Republican-led Congress is prepared to bring legislation to the floor facilitating China's entry into the WTO [World Trade Organization] at the earliest practical date. On issues of international trade, the major question is almost always the same -- can the President deliver a strong majority of House Democrats in favor of free trade legislation? Rhetoric must be supported by action, and action on trade legislation requires Democratic votes. The facts speak for themselves. Continued organized Democratic resistance to free trade legislation threatens to chill economic growth in the United States and undermine U.S. economic relations abroad. In closing let me summarize by saying that protecting the American people and our democratic way of life is in fact a heavy responsibility for all members of Congress, Democrat or Republican. I personally believe it is our most important responsibility as elected representatives of the people. But as I have mentioned earlier, I believe very strongly that if we remember the principles and beliefs of our founding fathers, and listen closely to the heartbeat of Americans today, we will not lose our way. And while I have contrasted the beliefs of the political parties as I see them, I have tried to not be partisan. I believe the battle of ideas is the very soul of American democracy. But while I respect the right of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to disagree, I believe it was poor judgment on the part of the administration to suggest that our disagreements with them are examples of "isolationism." Asking the administration to explain to the American people why actions they believe we must take meet the test of "protecting our people and our nation" is not an act of isolationism. It is an appropriate requirement in a democratic nation. To do otherwise would be to abandon the wisdom instilled in us by our founding fathers. It is exactly what Americans have been doing for 225 years. Likewise, I would argue that being the party of a strong defense is not a sign of isolationism. Quite the opposite. Isolationists have traditionally rejected providing the nation with the ability to project military power. And lastly, I would argue that being a party that wants to engage the world through free and open trade is not a sign of isolationism. It is a sign of a party that believes America is a confident nation - able to produce a better way of life for ourselves and others around the world. Thank you for your attention. (end text) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
