Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
U.S. Department of State
93/01/13 Statement at Senate Confirmation Hearing
Office of the Spokesman
Statement at Senate Confirmation Hearing
Secretary-Designate Christopher
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC,
January 13, 1993
Mr. Chairman: It is a great honor to appear before you as President-
elect Clinton's nominee for Secretary of State. This hearing room is a
long way from Scranton, North Dakota, population 300, where I was born
and raised, and I am deeply moved by being here in these circumstances.
You and the members of this committee have contributed much leadership
and wisdom to our nation's foreign policy over the past decade. Let me
say at the outset that I look forward to a close and cooperative
relationship with you. I also look forward to your questions and will
try to answer them with the ruthless candor for which diplomats are
famous.
In the 3 weeks since President-elect Clinton asked me to serve as his
Secretary of State, I have received about as much commiseration as
congratulation. Friends point to this new world's raw conflicts and
stress our own limited resources. They tell me I have drawn an
important but unpleasant assignment.
I appreciate their concern. But I dispute their assessment. I believe
we have arrived at a uniquely promising moment. The signature of this
era is change, and I believe many of the changes work in our favor. The
Cold War is over. Forty years of sustained effort on behalf of
collective security and human dignity have been rewarded. Millions who
lived under the stultifying yoke of communism are free. The tide of
democratic aspirations is rising from Tibet to Central America. Freer
markets are expanding the reach of prosperity. The nuclear nightmare is
receding, and I want to congratulate President Bush and [Russian]
President Yeltsin on their successful negotiation of the START II Treaty
[Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty]. We now have the opportunity to
create a new strategy that directs America's resources at something
other than superpower confrontation.
Perils of the New Era
Neither President-elect Clinton nor I have any illusions about the
perils that lurk in many of this era's changes. The end of the Cold War
has lifted the lid on many cauldrons of long-simmering conflict. The
bloody results are evident in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere. Nor
will this era lack for ruthless and expansionist despots; [Iraqi
President] Saddam Hussein confirmed that fact. Yet it is also true that
we are now relatively more powerful and physically more secure. So
while we are alert to this era's dangers, we nonetheless approach it
with an underlying sense of optimism.
Not since the late 1940s has our nation faced the challenge of shaping
an entirely new foreign policy for a world that has fundamentally
changed. Like our counterparts then, we need to design a new strategy
for protecting American interests by laying the foundations for a more
just and stable world. That strategy must reflect the fundamental
changes that characterize this era:
-- The surfacing of long-suppressed ethnic, religious, and sectional
conflicts, especially in the former Soviet bloc;
-- The globalization of commerce and capital;
-- A worldwide democratic revolution, fueled by new information
technologies that amplify the power of ideas;
-- New and old human rights challenges, including protecting ethnic
minorities as well as political dissidents;
-- The rise of new security threats, especially terrorism and the
spread of advanced weaponry and weapons of mass destruction; and
-- Global challenges including overpopulation, famine, drought,
refugees, AIDS [acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome], drug-trafficking,
and threats to the earth's environment.
To adapt our foreign policy goals and institutions to these changes,
President-elect Clinton has stressed that our effort must rest on three
pillars:
First, we must elevate America's economic security as a primary goal of
our foreign policy.
Second, we must preserve our military strength as we adapt our forces to
new security challenges.
Third, we must organize our foreign policy around the goal of promoting
the spread of democracy and markets abroad.
As we adapt to new conditions, it is worth underscoring the essential
continuity in American foreign policy. Despite a change in
administrations, our policy in many specific instances will remain
constant and will seek to build upon the accomplishments of our
predecessors. Examples include the Middle East peace process, firm
enforcement of the UN sanctions against Iraq, ratification and
implementation of the START II Treaty, and the continuing need for US
power to play a role in promoting stability in Europe and the Pacific.
Nevertheless, our Administration inherits the task of defining a
strategy for US leadership after the Cold War. We cannot afford to
careen from crisis to crisis. We must have a new diplomacy that seeks
to anticipate and prevent crises, like those in Iraq, Bosnia, and
Somalia, rather than simply to manage them. Our support for democratic
institutions and human rights can help defuse political conflicts. And
our support for sustainable development and global environmental
protection can help prevent human suffering on a scale that demands our
intervention. We cannot foresee every crisis. But preventive diplomacy
can free us to devote more time and effort to problems facing us at
home.
It is not enough to articulate a new strategy; we must also justify it
to the American people. Today, foreign policy makers cannot afford to
ignore the public, for there is a real danger that the public will
ignore foreign policy. The unitary goal of containing Soviet power will
have to be replaced by more complex justifications to fit the new era.
We need to show that, in this era, foreign policy is no longer foreign.
Practitioners of statecraft sometimes forget [that] their ultimate
purpose is to improve the daily lives of the American people. They
assume foreign policy is too complex for the public to be involved in
its formation. That is a costly conceit. From Vietnam to Iran-contra,
we have too often witnessed the disastrous effects of foreign policies
hatched by the experts without proper candor or consultation with the
public and their representatives in Congress.
More than ever before, the State Department cannot afford to have
"clientitis," a malady characterized by undue deference to the potential
reactions of other countries. I have long thought the State Department
needs an "America Desk." This Administration will have one--and I'll be
sitting behind it.
Guiding Principles For Foreign Policy
I will not attempt today to fit the foreign policy of the next 4 years
into the straightjacket of some neatly tailored doctrine. Yet,
America's actions in the world must be guided by consistent principles.
As I have noted, I believe there are three that should guide foreign
policy in this new era.
First, we must advance America's economic security with the same energy
and resourcefulness we devoted to waging the Cold War. The new
Administration will shortly propose an economic program to empower
American firms and workers to win in world markets, reduce our reliance
on foreign borrowing, and increase our ability to sustain foreign
commitments. Despite our economic woes, we remain the world's greatest
trading nation, its largest market, and its leading exporter. That is
why we must utilize all the tools at our disposal, including a new GATT
[General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] agreement and a North American
Free Trade Agreement that serves the interests of American firms,
workers, and communities.
In an era in which economic competition is eclipsing ideological
rivalry, it is time for diplomacy that seeks to assure access for US
businesses to expanding global markets. This does not mean that our
commercial goals will trump other important concerns, such as non-
proliferation, human rights, and sustainable development in the Third
World. But for too long, we have made economics the poor cousin of our
foreign policy. For example, in nearly all the countries of the former
Eastern bloc--nations whose economies and markets are on the threshold
of growth--we have for years assigned only one Foreign Service officer
to assist US companies. In the case of Russia, that means one
commercial officer for a nation of 150 million people. Other economic
powers, such as Germany and Japan, devote far more personnel to
promoting their firms, industries, and economic concerns.
The Clinton Administration intends to harness our diplomacy to the needs
and opportunities of American industries and workers. We will not be
bashful about linking our high diplomacy with our economic goals. We
will ask our foreign missions to do more to gather crucial information
about market opportunities and barriers and actively assist American
companies seeking to do business abroad.
Second, we must maintain a strong defense as we adapt our forces to new
and enduring security challenges. As a result of efforts begun in the
late 1970s by President Carter and continued under Presidents Reagan and
Bush, our Administration inherits the best fighting force in the world.
But the world has changed.
We face a paradox. The collapse of the Soviet Union enables us to
reduce our Cold War military forces. But it also leaves American power
as the main ballast for an unstable world. Our ability to manage the
transition to a more stable system of international relations will
depend on tenacious diplomacy backed by credible strength. The
President-elect and Secretary [of Defense]-designate Aspin have
described how we must adapt our armed forces to new missions. And I
agree with President-elect Clinton's statement that we will resolve
constantly to deter, sometimes to fight, and always to win.
I have spent a good portion of my life practicing various forms of
diplomacy, negotiation, and problem solving--from the effort to secure
the release of the American hostages in Iran, to responses to urban
unrest and police brutality, to the practice of law over 4 decades. I
have argued and still believe that diplomacy is a neglected imperative.
I believe we must apply new dispute resolution techniques and forms of
international arbitration to the conflicts that plague the world.
I also know from experience that nations do not negotiate on the basis
of goodwill alone; they negotiate on the basis of interests and,
therefore, on calculations of power. As I reflect on our experience in
the Cold War, it is clear that our success flowed from our ability to
harness diplomacy and power together--both the modernization of our
forces and negotiations for arms control; both advocacy for human rights
and covert and overt opposition to Soviet expansionism.
In the years to come, Americans will be confronted with vexing questions
about the use of force--decisions about whether to intervene in border
disputes, civil wars, outright invasions, and in cases of possible
genocide; about whether to intervene for purposes that are quite
different from the traditional missions of our armed forces--purposes
such as peace-keeping, peace-making, humanitarian assistance, evacuation
of Americans abroad, and efforts to combat drug smuggling and terrorism.
While there is no magic formula to guide such decisions, I do believe
that the discreet and careful use of force in certain circumstances--and
its credible threat in general--will be essential to the success of our
diplomacy and foreign policy. Although there will always be differences
at the margin, I believe we can--and must--craft a bipartisan consensus
in which these questions concerning the use of force will no longer
divide our nation as they once did.
However, we cannot respond to every alarm. I want to assure the
American people that we will not turn their blood and treasure into an
open account for use by the rest of the world. We cannot let every
crisis become a choice between inaction or American intervention. It
will be this Administration's policy to encourage other nations and the
institutions of collective security, especially the United Nations, to
do more of the world's work to deter aggression, relieve suffering, and
keep the peace. In that regard, we will work with [UN] Secretary
General Boutros-Ghali and the members of the Security Council to ensure
[that] the United Nations has the means to carry out such tasks.
The United Nations has recently shown great promise in mediating
disputes and fulfilling its promise of collective security--in Namibia,
Cambodia, El Salvador, and elsewhere. But the United Nations cannot be
an effective instrument for sharing our global burdens unless we share
the burden of supporting it. I will work to ensure that we pay our
outstanding obligations.
Ultimately, when our vital interests are at stake, we will always
reserve our option to act alone. As the President-elect has said, our
motto in this era should be: Together where we can; on our own where we
must.
One of the main security problems of this era will be the proliferation
of very deadly weapons--nuclear, chemical, biological, and enhanced
conventional weapons--as well as their delivery systems. The [Persian]
Gulf war highlighted the problem of a fanatical aggressor developing or
using weapons of mass destruction. We must work assiduously with other
nations to discourage proliferation through improved intelligence,
export controls, incentives, sanctions, and even force when necessary.
Overall, this Administration will give high priority to the prevention
of proliferation as we enter a new and exceedingly dangerous period.
Third, our new diplomacy will encourage the global revolution for
democracy that is transforming our world. Promoting democracy does not
imply a crusade to remake the world in our image. Rather, support for
democracy and human rights abroad can and should be a central strategic
tenet in improving our own security. Democratic movements and
governments are not only more likely to protect human and minority
rights, they are also more likely to resolve ethnic, religious, and
territorial disputes in a peaceful manner and to be reliable partners in
diplomacy, trade, arms accords, and global environmental protection.
A strategic approach to promoting democracy requires that we coordinate
all of our leverage, including trade, economic and security assistance,
and debt relief. By enlisting international and regional institutions
in the work of promoting democracy, the United States can leverage our
own limited resources and avoid the appearance of trying to dominate
others. In the information age, public diplomacy takes on special
importance--and that is why we will support the creation of a Radio Free
Asia to ensure that the people of all Asian nations have access to
uncensored information about their societies and about the world.
Democracy cannot be imposed from the top down but must be built from the
bottom up. Our policy should encourage patient, sustained efforts to
help others build the institutions that make democracy possible:
political parties, free media, laws that protect property and individual
rights, an impartial judiciary, labor unions, and voluntary associations
that stand between the individual and the state. American private and
civic groups are particularly well suited to help. In this regard, we
will move swiftly to establish the Democracy Corps, to put experienced
Americans in contact with foreign grassroots democratic leaders, and to
strengthen the bipartisan National Endowment for Democracy.
We must also improve our institutional capacity to provide timely and
effective aid to people struggling to establish democracy and free
markets. To that end, we need to overhaul the US Agency for
International Development [USAID]. The agency needs to take on fewer
missions, narrow the scope of its operations, and make itself less
bureaucratic. As a matter of enlightened self-interest as well as
compassion, we need to extract lessons from USAID's past successes and
failures to make its future efforts stronger.
In all this work, we must ensure that the people who carry out our
nation's foreign policy have the resources they need to do the job. I
want to work with you to ensure they have adequate facilities, training,
information systems, and security. We also need to take a new look at
the way our State Department is organized and our policy is formulated.
In the coming weeks, I intend to streamline the Department of State to
enhance our capabilities to deal with issues that transcend national
boundaries and to improve the international competitiveness of American
business.
The Clinton Administration will put America back in the forefront of
global efforts to achieve sustainable development and, in the process,
leave our children a better world. We believe that sound environmental
policies are a precondition of economic growth, not a brake on it.
These three pillars for our foreign policy--economic growth, military
strength, and support for democracy--are mutually re-enforcing. A
vibrant economy will strengthen America's hand abroad, while permitting
us to maintain a strong military without sacrificing domestic needs.
And by helping others to forge democracy out of the ruins of
dictatorship, we can pacify old threats, prevent new ones, and create
new markets for US trade and investment.
Principal Challenges To US Security
Let me take a few moments to consider how this strategic approach
applies to the principal security challenges that America faces in the
1990s. None is more important than helping Russia demilitarize,
privatize, invigorate its economy, and develop representative political
institutions. President Yeltsin's courageous economic and political
reforms stand as our best hope for reducing the still-formidable arsenal
of nuclear and conventional arms in Russia and other states of the
former Soviet Union, and this, in turn, permits reductions in our own
defense spending. A collapse of the Russian economy, which contracted
by 20% last year, could fatally discredit democracy, not only in the
eyes of the Russians but in the eyes of their neighbors as well. Our
Administration will join with our G-7 [Group of Seven leading
industrialized nations] partners to increase support for Russia's
economic reforms. That aid must be conditioned on the willingness of
Russia to continue the difficult but essential steps necessary to move
from a command economy to a more market-oriented one.
We shall also place high priority on direct and technical assistance for
Russia's efforts to dismantle its weapons and properly dispose of its
nuclear materials, to provide civilian employment for defense
technicians, and to house its demobilized forces. We must say to the
democratic reformers in Russia that the democratic nations stand with
them and that the world's experience in coping with similar problems is
available to them. We should also orchestrate similar international
action to help Ukraine, the other Commonwealth [of Independent] States,
the Baltics, and the nations of Eastern and Central Europe.
In Europe, we remain committed to NATO, history's most successful
military and political alliance, even as we support the evolution of new
security arrangements that incorporate the emerging democracies to the
east. Our Administration will support efforts by the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe to promote human rights, democracy,
free elections, and the historic re-integration of the nations of
Eastern and Western Europe. I can also assure you that this
Administration will vigorously pursue concerted action with our European
allies and international bodies to end the slaughter in Bosnia--a
slaughter that has claimed tens of thousands of lives and that threatens
to spread throughout the Balkans. Europe and the world community in
general must bring real pressures, economic and military, to bear on the
Serbian leadership to halt its savage policy of ethnic cleansing.
In Asia, we confront many challenges and opportunities. In particular,
as President-elect Clinton stressed during the campaign, a complex blend
of new and old forces requires us to rethink our policy toward China.
On the one hand, there is a booming economy based increasingly on free
market principles, which is giving hundreds of millions of Chinese
citizens an unprecedented degree of prosperity and a thirst for economic
as well as political reform. On the other hand, we cannot ignore
continuing reports of Chinese exports of sensitive military technology
to troubled areas, widespread violations of human rights, or abusive
practices that have contributed to a $17-billion trade imbalance between
our two nations. Our policy will seek to facilitate a peaceful
evolution of China from communism to democracy by encouraging the forces
of economic and political liberalization in that great country.
Elsewhere in Asia, the countries of the Pacific Rim are becoming a
global center of economic dynamism. In 1991, our trans-Pacific trade
exceeded $316 billion, dwarfing our $221-billion trade with Western
Europe. We must devote particular attention to Japan. Japan has
recently taken important steps to meet more of its international
security responsibilities, such as assisting in peace-keeping efforts
from Cambodia to Somalia. Now it must do more to meet its economic
responsibilities as well--to lower trade barriers more quickly and to
open its economy to competition. Together, Japan and the United States
account for a third or more of the global economy. That obligates us
both to steer clear of the reefs of recrimination and the rise of
regional trading blocs that could sink prospects for global growth. But
we also have an obligation to America's firms and workers to ensure
[that] they are able to benefit from the growth of Japan's economy,
just as the strength and openness of the US economy has helped fuel
Japan's prosperity over many decades.
In South Korea, we will continue to maintain our military presence as
long as North Korea poses a threat to that nation. And on Asia's
subcontinent, our interests include combating nuclear proliferation;
restoring peace to Afghanistan; seeing an end to communal strife that
threatens India's democracy; and promoting human rights and free
elections in Burma, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
In the Middle East, we must maintain the momentum behind the current
negotiations over peace and regional issues. President Bush and
[former] Secretary of State Baker deserve great credit for bringing
Arabs and Israelis to the bargaining table, and the Clinton
Administration is committed to building on that historic breakthrough.
Our democracy-centered policy underscores our special relationship with
Israel, the region's only democracy, with whom we are committed to
maintaining a strong and vibrant strategic relationship. We also
believe that America's unswerving commitment to Israel's right to exist
behind secure borders is essential to a just and lasting peace. We will
continue our efforts with both Israel and our Arab friends to address
the full range of that region's challenges.
Throughout the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, we will work toward new
arms control agreements, particularly concerning weapons of mass
destruction. We will assume a vigilant stance toward both Iraq and
Iran, which seem determined to sow violence and disorder throughout the
region and even beyond. In this region, as well, we will champion
economic reform, more accountable governance, and increased respect for
human rights. And following a decade during which over 1,000 Americans
were killed, injured, or kidnaped by perpetrators of international
terrorism, we will give no quarter to terrorists or the states that
sponsor their crimes against humanity.
Nowhere has the march against dictators and toward democracy been more
dramatic than in our own hemisphere. It is in our self-interest to help
Latin America consolidate a decade of hard-won progress. In the past
several years, as democracy has spread in the region and market
economies have been liberalized, our exports to Latin America have
doubled. In close partnership with our hemispheric partners, Canada and
Mexico, we should explore ways to extend free trade agreements to Latin
American nations that are opening their economies and political systems.
At the same time, we expect to complete understandings regarding the
North American Free Trade Agreement as outlined by President-elect
Clinton. We also need to make the Organization of American States [OAS]
a more effective forum for addressing our region's problems. In Haiti,
we strongly support the international effort by the UN and the OAS to
restore democracy. In Cuba, we will maintain the embargo to keep
pressure on the Castro regime. We will strongly support national
reconciliation and the full implementation of peace accords in El
Salvador and Nicaragua. And in the Andean countries, the power of the
drug lords must be broken to free their people and ours from the
corrupting influence of the narcotics trade.
In Africa, as well, a new generation is demanding the opportunities that
flow from multi-party democracy and open economies. They deserve our
understanding and support. We need to assist their efforts to build
institutions that can empower Africa's people to husband and benefit
from the continent's vast resources; deal with its economic, social, and
environmental problems; and address its underlying causes of political
instability. We will be equally committed to working with Congress to
redirect our foreign assistance programs to promote sustainable
development and private enterprise in Africa. In South Africa, we shall
work actively to support those, black and white, who are striving to
dismantle the hateful machinery of apartheid and working with
determination to build a multi-racial democracy.
The Triumph of Freedom
As I said on the day President-elect Clinton nominated me to be
Secretary of State, back when I was in law school, two of my heroes were
[former Secretaries of State] Gen. George Marshall and Dean Acheson.
And I am enormously honored by the opportunity to occupy the post held
by them and by many of the most revered names in our nation's history.
Marshall and Acheson were visionaries who recognized at the dawn of the
Cold War that America could not remain safe by standing aloof from the
world. And the triumph of freedom in that great struggle is the legacy
of the activist foreign policy they shaped to project our values and
protect our interests.
Now, as in their day, we face a new era and the challenge of developing
a new foreign policy. Its activism must be grounded in America's
enduring interests. It must be informed by a realistic estimate of the
dangers we face. It must be shaped by the democratic convictions we
share. And, to command respect abroad, it must rest on a sturdy,
bipartisan consensus here at home.
The ultimate test of the security strategy I have outlined today will be
in the benefits it delivers to the American people. Its worth will be
measured not by its theoretical elegance but by its results. If it
makes our people more prosperous and increases their safety abroad; if
it helps expand the stabilizing and ennobling reach of democratic
institutions and freer markets; if it helps protect the global
environment for our children--if it achieves these kinds of benefits,
then we will have discharged our responsibilities to our generation as
Marshall, Acheson, and the other architects of the post-war world
discharged theirs.
They have given us a high standard to emulate as we define anew the
requirements of US global leadership. I look forward to working with
both parties in Congress to construct a new framework for that
leadership, a frame-work within which healthy debate will occur but
within which we can also build a strong consensus that will help us
cooperatively pursue the national interest at home and abroad.
(###)