Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN
TESTIMONY BEFORE SFRC
FEBRUARY 14, 1995
STATEMENT BY
SECRETARY OF STATE WARREN CHRISTOPHER
BEFORE THE
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 15, 1995
Mr. Chairman, in the last three weeks, I have appeared
before this Committee three times to discuss three specific
issues -- the Agreed Framework with North Korea, the START
II treaty, and the loan guarantee package for Mexico.
Today, I have the privilege of offering an overview of the
Clinton Administration's foreign policy agenda for 1995. I
will also indicate how our proposed budget supports both the
principles guiding that agenda and the specific
opportunities that I will be pursuing this year.
We live in a world that has been profoundly transformed-- by
the end of the Cold War and by the triumph of democracy over
dictatorship in many nations. It is a world that is taking
shape in ways that are remarkably consistent with American
ideals and conducive to American interests. Indeed, it is a
world that has been shaped by the successful use of American
power -- and by the power of our principles.
But we must not be complacent. Aggression, intolerance, and
tyranny still threaten political stability and economic
development in vital regions. Challenges as diverse as
nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and environmental
degradation still endanger our security and prosperity.
Mr. Chairman, it was a bipartisan consensus that launched
the Marshall Plan, established NATO and the GATT, contained
communism and kept the United States and our allies strong
and free. Sustaining that bipartisan consensus is a core
personal commitment for me as Secretary of State. President
Clinton and I are determined that a Democratic President and
Republican majorities in Congress can and will work together
to maintain our nation's leadership in the world. It is in
the direct interest of each and every American that we
succeed.The imperative of American leadership is a central lesson of
this century. Consider what the world would be like without
American leadership in the last two years alone. We would
have four nuclear states in the former Soviet Union instead
of one, with Russian missiles still targeted at us; we would
have a full throttle nuclear program in North Korea; no GATT
agreement to expand world trade; brutal dictators still
terrorizing Haiti; very likely, Iraqi troops back in Kuwait;
and a deepening Mexican economic crisis threatening
instability along our border and in emerging market
economies around the world.
Since we last met, President Clinton introduced the
Administration's budget request for Fiscal Year 1996. It is
important to note at the outset that since 1984, there have
been substantial real cuts in the International Affairs
budget. It now represents only 1.3 percent of federal
spending. Notwithstanding the extraordinary array of
challenges we face, our 1996 spending request is essentially
level with what we are spending in the current fiscal year.
We have been tough-minded in putting together what is, by
any measure, an austere budget. Indeed, the resources we
are requesting through this budget are the rock bottom
minimum we need to defend and advance our nation's vital
interests.
Mr. Chairman, last November's elections certainly changed a
great deal. But they were not a license to lose sight of
our global interests or to walk away from our commitments in
the world. This budget advances our interests and maintains
our commitments. Approving it will be a stern test of our
willingness to dedicate the resources necessary to protect
the security and prosperity of the American people. It will
be a test of the first principle guiding our foreign policy:
a test of our commitment to lead.
The United States seeks a world of open societies and open
markets in which American values and interests can thrive.
Our strategy is driven by four principles: that we continue
to engage and to lead; that we maintain effective relations
with the world's great powers; that we adapt and build
institutions that will promote economic and security
cooperation; and that we continue to support democracy and
defend human rights.
As several of our recent accomplishments suggest, American
leadership requires that we be ready to back our diplomacy
with credible threats of force. To this end, President
Clinton is determined that the U.S. military remain the most
powerful and effective fighting force in the world -- as it
certainly is now.
When our vital interests are at stake, we must remain
prepared to defend them alone. But sometimes, by leveraging
our power and resources, and by leading through alliances
and institutions, we can achieve better results at lower
cost to human life and national treasure -- and that is a
sensible bargain I know the American people support.
This Administration has worked to ensure that peacekeepers
have realistic objectives, that money is not wasted, and
that tough questions are answered satisfactorily before new
missions are approved. We are determined not to allow the
UN to fall again into the traps of over-commitment or
mission creep. But we strongly oppose efforts in Congress
that threaten to remove peacekeepers from vital trouble
spots around the world, and to leave the President with an
unacceptable choice each time a crisis occurs -- a choice
between acting alone and doing nothing. As Secretary Perry
and I indicated yesterday, we will recommend to the
President that he veto legislation that, in its current
form, would undermine national security in this and other
important ways.
The second principle driving our strategy is the central
importance of constructive relations with the world's most
powerful nations: our Western European allies, Japan, China
and Russia. These nations possess the political, economic,
or military capability to have an impact -- for good or for
ill -- on the well-being of every American. The relatively
cooperative relations that these countries now have with us
and with each other is unprecedented in this century, but it
is not irreversible.
Our strategy toward the great powers begins with Western
Europe and Japan. We must revitalize our alliances with
this democratic core. We must also seize the opportunities
to build constructive relations with China and Russia,
countries that were not too long ago our fiercest
adversaries. Both are undergoing momentous, though very
different, transformations that directly affect American
interests.
Our partnership with Japan is the linchpin of our policy
toward East Asia, the most dynamic and fastest-growing
region in the world. This Administration has placed the
Asia-Pacific at the core of our long-term foreign policy
approach. Realizing President Clinton's vision of a stable
and prosperous Pacific Community will continue to be a top
priority. Moreover, the region figures prominently in many
of the central areas of opportunity that we are pursuing in
1995.
It is also imperative that we reinforce our security and
political ties with Japan -- as well as with South Korea and
our other treaty allies in the Pacific. It is equally
essential that the strength of our economic ties with Japan
matches the overall strength of our relationship. During
this year marking the fiftieth anniversary of the end of
World War II, we will highlight and heighten our close
cooperation on regional and global issues -- while
continuing to press for greater access to Japanese markets.
With China, we are pursuing constructive relations that are
consistent with our global and regional interests. The
President's strategy of comprehensive engagement is designed
to address a broad agenda with Beijing and to maintain
momentum in certain areas even as we face problems on other
issues. We want China to be fully integrated into the
international community. For that to happen, it must accept
the obligations that come with membership in international
institutions and adherence to international norms.
We are encouraging China's participation in regional
security and economic organizations. We are supporting its
accession to the World Trade Organization on proper terms.
We are seeking its full commitment to global
nonproliferation regimes. And we are encouraging China to
demonstrate greater respect for human rights -- an interest
that is clearly connected to the issue of intellectual
property rights because both depend on the rule of law.
The widespread pirating of computer software, videotapes,
and compact discs in China is unacceptable to the United
States and incompatible with China's responsibilities as an
emerging economic power. The President has indicated his
willingness to act. Let me add that every business leader I
have heard from on this issue supports our course of action.
And let me emphasize that China's leaders must understand
that attracting foreign investment and sustaining long-term
growth depend on their willingness to meet global standards
in this key area.
We are working to resolve our differences on this issue.
But we are not overlooking the other commercial and overall
strategic interests that we are pursuing with China. We
will continue to pursue a strategy of comprehensive
engagement where it is possible and where it is in our
interest to do so-- such as North Korea, Cambodia and the
control of narcotics. It will take time, but our goal
remains to cultivate a broad and full relationship with a
stable, open and prosperous China that is a full and
constructive member of the international community.
The United States, of course, has an enormous stake in the
outcome of Russia's continuing transformation. A stable,
democratic Russia is vital to a secure Europe and a stable
world. An unstable Russia that reverts to dictatorship or
slides into chaos would be an immediate threat to its
neighbors and once again a strategic threat to the United
States.
Like each of you, we have been deeply concerned about the
conflict in Chechnya -- about the tragic loss of life, the
excessive and indiscriminate use of force against civilians,
and the corrosive implications this episode can have for the
future of Russian democracy. That is why we have emphasized
so strongly to the Russian government that the fighting must
end-- a point that President Clinton reiterated in a
telephone call to President Yeltsin yesterday. A process of
reconciliation must begin that validates Russia's commitment
to democracy and takes into account the views of the people
of Chechnya.
The violence in Chechnya has not altered our fundamental
interest in helping Russian reformers build a nation that is
finally at peace with itself and its neighbors. There is a
wide range of programs that we undertake to advance
democratic and economic reform in Russia. Our assistance
supports programs ranging from Russia's vitally important
and newly free press to jury trials to small business
development. Most of the assistance has gone to private
organizations and to local governments outside Moscow.
Those funds that do go to the central government primarily
support the institutional reforms necessary for democracy
and market reform, such as election assistance, the drafting
of commercial codes and the setting up of privatization
programs. And of our total request of $788 million to
support reform in the former Soviet Union, less than half
would go to Russia itself.
Precisely because the future of reform in Russia is not
assured, we must persevere in our support of the people and
institutions struggling on its behalf. Cutting assistance
now would hurt the friends of democracy in Russia -- the
very forces that have been most critical of the Chechnya
operation.
There are also many vital security issues on which we are
working with Russia, such as Nunn-Lugar programs to secure
dismantled warheads, arms reductions agreements and
cooperation on regional conflict. This aspect of our
relationship has paid off for every American -- from
reducing the nuclear threat to advancing peace in the Middle
East.
Chechnya has raised questions about Russia's commitment to
democratic processes, economic reform, and international
standards of conduct. Our approach is designed to reinforce
democratic trends in Russia and to encourage the government
in Moscow to pursue policies consistent with these
principles. We will assess Russia's actions in Chechnya,
its domestic programs and international initiatives in light
of this objective and we will adjust our policy accordingly.
The third principle guiding our overall strategy is that if
the historic movement toward open societies and open markets
is to endure, we must adapt and revitalize the institutions
of global and regional cooperation. After World War II, the
generation of Truman, Marshall, Acheson, and Vandenberg
built the great institutions that gave structure and
strength to the common enterprise of western democracies:
promoting peace and economic growth. Now, as President
Clinton said in his recent meeting with German Chancellor
Helmut Kohl, "We will consider how to move toward NATO's
expansion to Europe's new democracies and how to adapt the
international institutions to serve us for the next 50
years."
At the President's initiative, we and our G-7 partners will
chart a strategy in Halifax this June to adapt the post-war
economic institutions to the more integrated post- Cold War
world. We are also helping regional institutions and
structures like the Organization of American States, ASEAN,
and the Organization of African Unity to support peace and
democratic development. Our 1996 budget includes $934
million in contributions to the UN and to other
international bodies, as well as $2.2 billion to the
multilateral development banks.
The fourth principle is the fundamental role that democracy
and human rights have in this Administration's foreign
policy. Our commitment is consistent with American ideals.
It also rests on a sober assessment of our long-term
interest in a world where stability is reinforced by
accountability and disputes are mediated by dialogue; a
world where information flows freely and the rule of law
protects not only political rights but the essential
elements of free market economies.
Since my last appearance before this Committee, the State
Department has issued its 19th annual report on human rights
practices worldwide. The first reports were prepared under
my direction in 1977 during my first year as Deputy
Secretary of State. Those early reports were small in scale
and narrow in scope compared to today's effort. The Country
Reports help us to shape our diplomacy, assistance and trade
policy. We use them as we work with foreign governments,
international organizations, and NGO's. They are also
important in their own right, because they shine a bright
light on human rights violations that might otherwise be
shielded by a veil of secrecy and indifference.
In FY 1996, we are requesting $480 million through the SEED
program to maintain our assistance for democratic and
economic reform in Central and Eastern Europe. These funds
will support social sector reform in areas like health and
housing. They will help build accountable, responsive
public administration at the central and local levels. And
they will promote small business development to spur job
creation.
Our budget requests $220 million for Countries in Transition
such as Haiti, Cambodia, and Angola. In Haiti, our $90
million of continued support will help consolidate democracy
in Haiti and promote the economic development that will
enable the majority of Haitians to overcome poverty and
raise their living standards. Cambodia has struggled, so
far with encouraging success, to overcome a tragic legacy of
war, repression, and genocide. We have designated $39.5
million to support democratic and market reform, including
the implementation of transparent legal and judicial
reforms. Angola is trying to lift itself up from the bitter
terrain of Africa's longest running conflict. Our $10
million request can make a difference on behalf of democracy
and stability.
Approximately $18 million of the $220 million we request
will go to other African countries in transition to support
credible elections, respect for the rule of law, and good
governance. And $33.5 million will support a wide variety
of programs in Latin America and the Caribbean to promote
and strengthen democratic institutions, local government,
police training, the media, and grass-roots non-governmental
organization development.
Mr. Chairman, the Summit of the Americas demonstrated that
this hemisphere has committed itself to democratic
institutions, respect for human rights, and free markets.
Only one country out of 35 was not invited to the Summit,
the one country that rejects the shared goals of those who
came to Miami in December. That country is Cuba.
The fundamental goal of our Cuba policy is a peaceful
transition to democracy, respect for the human rights of the
Cuban people, and an open economy with opportunity for all.
This Administration is committed to a vigorous pursuit of
that objective. We believe the best means of achieving this
goal is the course outlined by the Cuban Democracy Act. We
believe the enforcement of the embargo, and the pressures it
brings to bear on the regime in Havana, are hastening the
day when democracy will return to Cuba.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR 1995
As we are guided by these basic principles, in 1995 I intend
to focus on five key areas that offer particularly
significant opportunities: advancing the most open global
trading system in history; developing a new European
security order; helping achieve a comprehensive peace in the
Middle East; combating the spread of weapons of mass
destruction; and fighting international crime, narcotics,
and terrorism.
Open Trade, Exports and Jobs
First, we must sustain the momentum we have generated toward
the increasingly open global and regional trading system
that is vital to American exports and American jobs. A core
premise of our domestic and foreign policy is that our
economic strength at home and abroad are mutually
reinforcing. I believe that history will judge this
emphasis to be a distinctive imprint and a lasting legacy of
the Clinton Administration.
This year, we will take steps to implement the Uruguay Round
and ensure that the new World Trade Organization upholds
essential trade rules and disciplines. We will work with
Japan and our other APEC partners to develop a blueprint for
achieving open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific
region. We will begin to implement the Summit of the
Americas Action Plan. And last week, Ambassador Kantor
announced that we will also begin to negotiate Chile's
accession to NAFTA.
At the same time, American companies and workers must be
able to take advantage of the opportunities that these
successful negotiations are helping to create. That is why
this Administration is sparing no effort to make sure that
our companies can compete on a level playing field. That is
why I continue to sit behind what I call the America Desk at
the State Department, and why I am determined to keep
economic and commercial diplomacy at the core of the
Department's work.
Our embassies around the world are working harder than ever
to help win contracts, safeguard investments and support
American firms in every way they can. This Administration
has achieved an unprecedented degree of focus and
coordination in our export promotion efforts.
Exports have been the driving force in our economic
recovery. They must remain the driving force for long-term
growth. Over the past two years, our export promotion
efforts have created more than one million high-paying
American jobs. This budget will help sustain that
performance.
In FY 1996, we are requesting $900 million to promote trade
and investment opportunities for American businesses through
programs run by the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency,
and others. These programs produce concrete economic
benefits for the American people. They also reinforce our
other foreign policy goals. They strengthen free markets
and modernize vital sectors in developing economies. They
lift living standards and multiply future demand for
American goods. And they contribute to stability in new
democracies struggling to overcome legacies of repression
and conflict.
Let me add a word about an issue that has occupied the
attention of the Administration and the Congress in recent
weeks: the Mexican financial crisis. Two weeks ago, the
President decided that the situation had to be addressed
without further delay. With the support of the
congressional leadership of both parties, he took decisive
action to safeguard the prosperity of our people, the
security of our borders, and the stability of our closest
Latin neighbor and of other emerging markets in which we
have a growing stake.
In the long run, of course, stability in Mexico will depend
on the Mexican government's ability to consolidate economic
and political reform. As you know, President Zedillo last
week ordered the arrest of the leaders of the rebel movement
in Chiapas. Clearly, governments have a responsibility to
protect their citizens against violence and lawlessness.
President Zedillo also called for a special session of the
Mexican Congress to address the underlying problems in the
region. The United States agrees with President Zedillo
that, in his words, "a solution to this conflict should come
through full respect for the law, through political channels
and through conciliation."
European Security Architecture
In our second area of opportunity, we are taking concrete
steps to build a new European security architecture. Deep
political, economic, and cultural bonds continue to make
Europe's security and prosperity essential to ours. Our
efforts will focus on maintaining strong relations with
Western Europe, consolidating democracy in Central Europe
and the former Soviet Union, and engaging Russia as a
responsible partner.
We are pursuing these goals through continued development of
NATO and its outreach to the east, strengthening the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
building our relationship with the European Union, and
developing a cooperative NATO/Russia relationship in
promoting European security.
NATO remains the anchor of American engagement in Europe and
the linchpin of transatlantic security. NATO has always
been more than a transitory response to a temporary threat.
It has been a guarantor of European democracy and a force
for European stability. That is why its mission has
endured, and why its benefits are so attractive to Europe's
new democracies.
NATO has previously welcomed new members who shared its
purposes and who could add to its strength. With American
leadership, NATO agreed last December to begin a steady,
deliberate process that will lead to further expansion. We
have already begun to examine with our Allies the process
and objectives of expansion. We intend to share our
conclusions with the members of the Partnership for Peace
this fall so that at the December Ministerial we can
evaluate the results of our consultations and be ready to
consider next steps.
Our strategy encourages new democracies to become
responsible partners in a new European security order. The
Partnership for Peace is a critical tool for cooperation
between NATO and partner states. It is also the best path
to membership for countries wishing to join the Alliance.
The President's budget request meets the commitment he made
in Warsaw last July to help the states of Central and
Eastern Europe participate in the Partnership for Peace, and
to help potential members prepare for the obligations they
will assume if they join NATO.
Our step-by-step approach to NATO expansion is designed to
ensure that each potential member is judged fairly and
individually, by its capacity to contribute to NATO's goals
and the strength of its democratic institutions. By
following this approach, we give every new democracy a
powerful incentive to consolidate reform. We remain
convinced that arbitrarily locking in advantages for
certain countries, or setting specific timetables, could
discourage reformers in countries not named and foster
complacency in countries that are.
The tragic war in Bosnia underscores the importance of
building an effective new architecture for conflict
prevention and resolution in Europe. Together with our
partners in the Contact Group, we are seeking a negotiated
solution. The Contact Group plan with its 51/49 territorial
division must be the basis for a settlement, and Bosnia's
territorial integrity and independence must be respected.
As you know, a ceasefire and formal cessation of hostilities
have been achieved and are largely holding. We are taking
advantage of this opportunity to intensify our diplomatic
efforts to bring an end to the war. Last week in Munich,
Defense Secretary Perry and Assistant Secretary of State
Richard Holbrooke met with Bosnian Muslim and Croat leaders
to bolster support for their planned confederation.
Now we and our Contact Group partners are working
intensively to bring the parties to the negotiating table.
We believe the French proposal for a conference involving
the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Presidents -- if properly
structured -- could advance our overall goals for the former
Yugoslavia, including political settlements in Bosnia and
Croatia. We would want the conference to be held in the
context of the Contact Group efforts. And we would not
favor participation of the Bosnian Serbs until and unless
they have accepted the Contact Group plan. Prior to holding
any such conference, however, there should be a firm
commitment to genuine mutual recognition among all the
republics of the former Yugoslavia.
I remain convinced that only a negotiated settlement has any
chance of lasting. I am committed to pursuing that goal.
What we must not do is to make the situation worse by
unilaterally lifting the arms embargo. We have always
believed that the embargo is unfair and we have worked to
end it multilaterally. But going it alone would lead to the
withdrawal of UNPROFOR and an escalation of violence.
Such a course would leave Sarajevo and the enclaves
extremely vulnerable to Serb offensives. It would
effectively Americanize the conflict, and lead others to
abandon the sanctions on Serbia. It would undermine the
authority of all UN Security Council Resolutions, including
resolutions that impose sanctions on Iraq and Libya.
Middle East Peace and Security
Our third area of opportunity is advancing peace in the
Middle East. Our budget allocates $5.24 billion to sustain
our efforts at a decisive moment for the peace process.
Over the past few years, we have seen an extraordinary
transformation in the landscape of the Arab-Israeli conflict
-- one of the century's most intractable. Clearly, however,
there are still many horrible vestiges of the past that must
be eradicated. The terrorist outrage in Israel on January
22 is a painful reminder of the challenges still to be
overcome.
Last Sunday, President Clinton convened an unprecedented
meeting at Blair House, attended by representatives from
Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. At
the end of the day, the parties produced two important
documents. The first came out of my meeting with Israeli
Foreign Minister Peres and Nabil Sha'th of the Palestinian
Authority. In it, Israel and the Palestinians declared that
there could be no turning back in the peace process. They
vowed to press ahead. And the Palestinian Authority
underscored its commitment to preempt terror, punish those
responsible and deny safehavens to those who plan and carry
out terror.
The second document was the Blair House Communique,
reflecting the discussions of the full ministerial. The
ministers identified a series of cooperative goals that must
be met in four key, related dimensions: the peace process,
security, economics, and people-to-people. The ministers
directed their experts to begin work urgently on
implementing their recommendations.
For our part, President Clinton on Sunday proposed that the
United States extend duty free treatment to products from
future industrial zones on the West Bank and Gaza and free
trade zones in Taba, Eilat, and Aqaba. This proposal can do
more over time to help the region's struggling economies
than any aid program. We look forward to further
consultations with the Congress on this important matter.
The momentum for a comprehensive peace must be maintained.
Israel's negotiations with Syria are entering a crucial
phase. We have made progress in narrowing the gaps between
the parties. But if a breakthrough is to be achieved in the
next few months, critical decisions must be made and the
process must be accelerated. President Clinton and I will
do everything we can to support these efforts.
Non-Proliferation
Our fourth area of emphasis is to intensify our efforts to
stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their
means of delivery. We face a year of decision for global
nonproliferation. Indeed, our global and regional
strategies for 1995 comprise the most ambitious
nonproliferation effort in history. We will carry out that
effort in close consultation with the Congress.
The centerpiece of our strategy is to obtain the indefinite
and unconditional extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty,
which is up for renewal this year--and which I think history
will record as one of the most important treaties of all
time. Achieving this objective is a key priority of our
diplomacy around the world.
With the agreements President Clinton signed last December
in Budapest, we can also begin to implement the START I
nuclear reduction treaty. Prompt ratification of START II
will in turn enable us to complete the work we began with
START I. Its elimination of missiles with multiple
independently targeted re-entry vehicles will further
enhance stability and lower the chances of a massive nuclear
conflict. At the same time, it will enable us to retain a
strong and capable deterrent.
Mr. Chairman, North Korea is also central to our non-
proliferation objectives. Let me emphasize today that we
have stressed to the North Koreans the need to accept South
Korean light water reactors and to resume North-South
dialogue. Both conditions are essential to full
implementation of the Framework Accord. We are holding
talks with North Korea to ensure implementation of the
Framework.
We will also continue close consultations with our allies.
I met last week with the new Foreign Minister of South
Korea. He reaffirmed South Korea's determination to move
forward with the accord. We agree that we must remain
vigilant. But careful implementation of the Agreed
Framework is far preferable to the alternatives we were
facing: a North Korea going forward with its nuclear
program, a return to the Security Council for sanctions, and
a costly military build-up.
Our 1996 budget dedicates $166 million to meet the threat
posed by proliferation. It provides assistance to the
International Atomic Energy Agency -- an organization vital
in the effort to halt North Korea's nuclear program. It
supports the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, including
funds for implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
And it replenishes the Non-Proliferation Fund we use to
combat nuclear smuggling, enforce export controls, and
ensure missile dismantlement.
Crime, Terrorism, and Drugs
Our fifth area of opportunity for 1995 is combating
international terrorists, criminals, and drug traffickers.
This Administration is aggressively fighting these threats
at home. But we recognize their global dimensions, and we
are actively mobilizing other nations to help us defeat
them.
Altogether, our budget requests $240 million for these
efforts. It more than doubles our funding to fight
international crime. And it will support a comprehensive
global strategy that we are developing with our colleagues
at Justice, Treasury, and other law enforcement agencies.
This strategy will include intensive diplomacy to ensure
that other nations fulfill their international obligations;
broader international cooperation in asset forfeiture and
money laundering; and consideration of tougher requirements
for obtaining U.S. visas. And, as the President announced
last week, the Administration will be proposing legislation
to combat alien smuggling and illegal immigration. We will
be consulting closely with Congress as we put the final
elements of this strategy together.
The budget also supports our battle against international
terrorism, in which we have made substantial progress in
just the past few weeks. The President's Executive Order
freezing the assets of certain terrorist groups and
individuals sent a message that we intend to cut off the
financial pipeline that supports their activity. The
spectacular arrest of Ramzi Yousef, the alleged mastermind
of the World Trade Center bombing, in Pakistan and his
transfer to the United States reminds those who target
Americans and America that they cannot escape forever the
long arm of American law enforcement. Also last week, the
President transmitted to the Congress our proposed Omnibus
Counterterrorism Act of 1995, which, if enacted, will give
the Executive Branch new tools to improve prevention,
investigation, and prosecution of terrorism.
* * *
I have described five key areas of opportunity for 1995.
But I want to stress that we will continue to address many
other issues important to our nation's interests and to this
Congress, such as promoting stability and democracy in Asia,
Africa, and Latin America. American engagement in the world
is also reflected in our willingness to take on newer,
global challenges that call for international partnership,
but require the leadership that only the United States can
provide.
We can no longer escape the consequences of environmental
degradation, unsustainable population growth, and endemic
poverty beyond our borders. Increasingly, they threaten not
just our continued prosperity but our security. Countries
with persistent poverty, worsening environmental conditions,
and feeble social infrastructure are not just poor markets
for our products. They are likely victims of conflicts and
crises that can only be resolved by costly American
intervention.
That is why the Clinton Administration is dedicated to
restoring America's leadership role on sustainable
development -- an approach that recognizes the links between
economic, social and environmental progress. We are putting
this global challenge back where it belongs: in the
mainstream of American foreign policy and diplomacy. The
President's FY 1996 request includes $5.2 billion for
Promoting Sustainable Development. I believe strongly that
every dollar of this money will yield lasting dividends for
the American people.
Supporting the developing world's efforts to promote
economic growth and alleviate chronic conditions of poverty
serves America's interests. Nearly $1.4 billion of this
budget will fund through USAID and multilateral programs
activities that will, among other things, promote economic
growth and free market economies; improve basic education;
lessen the suffering and increase the survival of children;
and treat and prevent HIV/AIDS. By helping nations to
emerge from poverty, we can help them become stable pillars
of regions at peace, and closer partners of ours in
diplomacy and trade.
Our FY 1996 request for stabilizing world population growth
is designed to complement our efforts to promote economic
development. To maintain the momentum of last September's
Cairo Conference on Population and Development, we are
requesting $635 million for bilateral and multilateral
population programs. We also designate $378 million for
USAID and multilateral programs to address global
environmental problems like air and water pollution,
decreased biodiversity, and damage to the ozone layer.
The FY 1996 budget harnesses the will and capacity of our
nation to respond to famine, natural disasters, and the
displacement of peoples from their homes. The $1.7 billion
we request for humanitarian assistance is integral to our
overall development strategy because it not only provides
relief, but helps victims of violence and disaster return to
the path of recovery and sustainable development. Our
budget also designates $283 million to support the Peace
Corps and two other agencies that work at the grass-roots
level: the Inter- American Foundation and the African
Development Foundation.
Our nation's ability to achieve success in the five areas of
opportunity that I have identified for 1995, as well as the
other objectives of our foreign policy, depends on the
dedicated men and women who serve our nation's international
affairs agencies.
Our diplomatic posts around the world serve as sentries
for the American people. They confront short- and long-term
threats to the security of our citizens. They protect
Americans traveling abroad. And as I pointed out earlier,
promoting the interests of American companies and workers is
a central element of our foreign policy, and our posts
around the world are on the front lines of that effort.
It is essential that we arm our international affairs
personnel with the skills and resources they need to do
their jobs on behalf of our nation's vital interests. Like
our soldiers, they must be equipped to fight for America's
interests. They must have access to modern communications
technology. They must work in facilities that help, not
hinder, their productivity. And they must be trained in the
diplomatic disciplines of the future, from commercial
promotion to helping fight international crime, terrorism
and narcotics.
Clearly, our long-term interests are ill-served by
responding only to the crises of the day. The challenge of
diplomacy is to anticipate, and to prevent, the crises of
the future. If we are successful, we can dedicate greater
resources to the urgent challenges of domestic renewal that
the American people demand we meet.
* * *
America today faces a challenge that recalls the
opportunities and dangers that confronted us at the end of
the First and Second World Wars. Then, as now, two distinct
paths lay before us: either to claim victory and withdraw,
or to provide American leadership to build a more peaceful,
free, and prosperous world. After World War I, our leaders
chose the first path and we and the world paid a terrible
price. No one will dispute that after the Second World War,
our leaders, and most of all the American people, wisely
chose the other path.
Among the challenges that Truman, Marshall, Acheson and
their Democratic colleagues faced was to build a new postwar
order in cooperation with a new Republican Congress. And to
the lasting benefit of our nation and the world, they met
that challenge. They found new allies among Republicans who
recalled the consequences of isolationism after World War I
-- a period that also began with a Democratic President
facing new Republican majorities in Congress. With
congressional leaders such as Senator Arthur Vandenberg -- a
great Chairman of this committee -- they forged the
bipartisan consensus that delivered aid to Greece and
Turkey, developed the Marshall Plan, devised the postwar
institutions, and sustained American leadership ever since.
Since my first week in office, I have consulted closely with
both parties in Congress on every important issue on our
agenda. We have gained bipartisan backing for key
objectives of our foreign policy, including our approach on
the Middle East peace process, our landmark trade
agreements, such as NAFTA, GATT, and APEC, and
denuclearization in the former Soviet Union.
My discussions with you Mr. Chairman, the members of this
committee, and the new Republican leadership give me great
confidence that we will sustain the bipartisan foreign
policy that is America's tradition. I look forward to
continuing to work closely with you as we pursue America's
interests.
(###)
To the top of this page