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)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
