U.S. Foreign Policy: Meeting the Challenges of Change
U.S. Foreign Policy: Meeting the Challenges of ChangeSpeech by U.S. Senator Hagel at the University of Notre Dame
January 24, 2003
I would like to thank the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies, and the Departments of History, Political Science, and First Year of Studies at the University of Notre Dame for inviting me to speak to you today.
I can think of few more precarious assignments for a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee than to discuss foreign affairs in the home state of the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar. Senator Lugar is a close friend and colleague, and one of the most highly respected voices in the Congress on foreign policy. His is among the wisest counsel in the U.S. Senate. I also count Indiana's other U.S. Senator, Evan Bayh, as a good friend and a highly regarded member of the Senate.
A World of Change
A great test of leadership in world affairs is to understand the dynamics of change, the nature of the threats we face, and the opportunities that a new world offers. It is not always easy to see change while it takes place all around you. Time is both cyclical and linear, representing recurring patterns which can obscure or influence truly profound change in world affairs. Leadership requires a wide lens of observation and astute judgment.
The world after September 11, 2001, is not just about America's commitment to defeating terrorism, its patrons and partners, but a larger realization that the 21st century is emerging with new challenges, just as the world has entered every new century. This will require expanded thinking about globalization and the ways and uses of power and politics. As Arnold Toynbee wrote years ago, each civilization in the history of the world has been defined by challenge and response. The post- 9/11 world is America's new challenge, and how we respond to it will define our role in, and our ability to lead in this changing world.
The record of globalization in world affairs is a mixed one, with many parts of the world, including most of Africa and the Middle East, being left behind. Harvard University Professor Stanley Hoffman has written that, "in the realm of global society, much will depend on whether the United States will overcome its frequent indifference to the costs that globalization imposes on poorer countries." One can subscribe to that tenet or not. However, there are some startling facts that the world must deal with: Half the world, three billion people, live on $2.00 or less per day. More than 800 million people go hungry every year. In 1999, GDP in all Arab countries was less than that of Spain ($531 billion compared to $595.5 billion). Sweden receives more foreign direct investment than all Arab countries combined.
A survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, released last month, found that the spread of disease is considered as the most pressing international challenge by citizens in a majority of the countries polled. More than 28 million of the approximately 40 million people infected with HIV/AIDS live in sub-Saharan Africa, and 9% of all sub-Saharans between the ages of 15 and 49 carry HIV. This is an historic tragedy, and not just in Africa. The projected growth rates and spread of this disease in China, India, and Russia signal an alarming trend for humanity at the beginning of this new century.
In the recent past, America's greatest threat was the Soviet empire, its global ambitions, nuclear arsenal, and ideological tyranny. Today, threats come not from a rival nation or doctrine or coalition of nations, but from transnational cartels and networks of terrorists that undermine the world's security, societies and stability, as well as America's security, values and way of life. In addition to terrorism, Moses Naim, the editor and publisher of Foreign Policy, has written of the challenges of the five wars of globalization: the international trade in drugs, arms, intellectual property, people, and money. To meet these threats requires extensive international intelligence and law enforcement cooperation and alliances, cooperation and multi-national efforts and relationships like we have never before experienced.
Some of the most serious threats to American security today come not from rival powers or coalitions, but from failed and failing states. Professor Robert Rotberg wrote last year in Foreign Affairs about the dangers to world security of failed states such as Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Angola, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia and Sudan. These countries exist on the edge of modernity and civilization, and are not only breeding grounds and potential exporters of terrorism, but sources of political and economic instability in their regions. We cannot allow this list to continue to grow.
The peoples of these and other states on the brink of collapse deserve a future of hope and promise, not misery and despair. Helping prevent more failed states, especially in Africa, the Middle East and South and Central Asia, must be a priority in America's foreign policy. . .because it will determine the future of the world.
Afghanistan is the first critical test case in the war on terrorism, and in our effort to prevent more failed states. Helping rebuild Afghanistan's infrastructure, institutions, and civil society is important to America's and the region's security. The outcome in Afghanistan will shape the future in Central and South Asia and have an impact throughout the Islamic world. The Israeli-Palestinian and India-Pakistan conflicts show little promise of reconciliation without active and balanced American engagement and mediation. What we have started in Afghanistan, and whatever further actions we take there and in Iraq, will have ripple effects throughout the Muslim world and beyond. America and the world must deal not only with these dangerous and combustible problems, but with crises in South America and North Korea as well. Taken together, these are real and current dangers to world peace.
America's policies in these areas are as connected as they are complicated. They cannot be untangled. They will not be resolved by regime change in Baghdad, and they will not wait until we are ready to deal with them. America must deal with all of these problems at the same time. And that will require a careful balance of resources, leadership and commitment.
America's course of action will demand wise, steady, and patient leadership and focus. In this era of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the burdens on our policy-makers are great, expectations high, and the margins of error small.
The Imperative for Coalitions
America straddles the globe at the beginning of the 21st century unrivaled in power and presence. American values of liberty, democracy, and free markets are emulated and respected throughout the world. Our military has no match, and our economy maintains its capacity for growth and global leadership. We enter this new century with confidence and promise.
But all of this great power will not be enough to assure American security and prosperity in the 21st century. The threats to both our country and the world will require strengthened alliances to manage the diplomatic, economic, law enforcement, intelligence and humanitarian aspects of these new global challenges. Military power alone will not be enough.
Working through the United Nations and regional alliances allows America to reinforce, not weaken, its power, principles and purpose. On the Korean peninsula, for example, our allies in South Korea and Japan continue to work shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States to get Kim Jong Il to give up his nuclear weapons program. They understand the threat from North Korea better than we do. They live with it every day. America gains by working with and empowering our allies to share leadership and initiative.
The challenges of economic development and political reform, to offer hope and a better way of life for those who have so far missed the benefits of globalization, requires a balance of American leadership and international support. We cannot solve completely the problem of world poverty, but we can do more to help build coalitions to eradicate world hunger and disease. But again, we cannot do it alone. The perpetuation of poverty and despair breeds only radical politics and anti-Americanism. We must understand the cause and effect connections to global de-stabilization, terrorism, poverty, and desperation.
America must establish programs of partnership with the peoples and governments of the developing world to break this cycle of inhumanity. We must do more to encourage private sector development, the rule of law, transparency, human rights, and trade-based growth in the Middle East and Central Asia, and throughout the developing world. And we must hold governments accountable for their actions. That is the intent of the Bush Administration's five billion dollar Millennium Challenge Account, which I support, as a creative initiative to meet the challenges of poverty and development across the globe.
There is a disturbing and widening gap between America and the world regarding the perception of the intent of American power. America must not forget the role that coalitions play in bringing international support and legitimacy to our policies, especially to the use of force. Through engagement, the United States can work with NATO, as it has in the Balkans and Afghanistan, to address, in Jim Hoagland's words, "talk of NATO undergoing an existential crisis as it abandons Cold War clarity for the grays of Third World involvement and providing support for the U.S. war on terrorism."
Some of those who would rush to war in the absence of a strong multi-lateral coalition believe that, despite widespread concern about American intentions, others will surely follow in America's strong wake, just to be sure to be on the winning side. These nations, it is said, will covet a seat at the table for their share of the economic and political rewards and dividends that many expect in a post-Saddam Iraq. This line of thinking is questionable and very chancy.
The reality may be more subtle, and not as promising, if the United States turns away from its allies and prefers a go-it-alone course. We may be witnessing a widening of the gap between America and the world, as we approach a day of decision on Iraq, and perhaps the day after, even if Saddam's regime goes down without a protracted military struggle. America must not fear making difficult decisions, including the decision for war, if that is what is required. But we must be wiser and more cautious in our use of our awesome military power than ever before. America must play for the long term. Our policies, words and deeds must set the tone for the next generation, not just seek results for today.
Hubris and Humility
America must guard against the hubris of great power at this critical time in its history. Our power is unsurpassed, but our security continues to rest on our alliances, our values and our strength. We must be patient and exercise a mature judgment in our decisions that will encourage others to follow and trust our leadership, rather than question and turn away from our initiatives.
I am reading an interesting book, The Savage Wars of Peace, by Max Boot, Olin Senior Fellow, National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. In the book, which is rich in American military history, Boot recounts the many "small wars" in which America has used military force to expand its power and influence in the world. While warning of "imperial overstretch and hubris," Boot advises that "in deploying American power, decisionmakers should be less apologetic, less hesitant, less humble." "America," Boot concludes, "should not be afraid to fight the 'savage wars of peace' if necessary to enlarge the 'empire of liberty.'" The author draws upon the "lessons of history" in making his case.
America's military history is a source of pride and honor for our nation. It is part of who we are and what we represent in the world. I have been honored to serve my country in uniform in combat in Vietnam. And because of my experience in Vietnam, I know that war brings uncertainty, unintended consequences, death, and destruction.
The burden is on policymakers to be wise and judicious, not hurried and adventurous, in making the decision for any war, great or small. The decision to go to war must always be predicated on defending our country, our people, our values, our culture, and our allies.
At this precarious juncture in American history, America needs more humility than hubris in the applications of American military power, and the recognition that our interests are best served through alliances and consensus. That is why the President's approach to disarmament in Iraq, through the United Nations, represents the most responsible and effective means to end the threat from Saddam Hussein. Mutlilateralism, in support of American interests and objectives, remains a source of strength in our foreign policy, the best means of expanding American influence in the world.
Lessons of History
Even at times of historic and profound change, we can indeed learn from the past. Time is fluid and interactive; the past is never just "history," it is part of the present and the future, and it informs our actions and decisions. To misread or overlook the lessons of history dooms us to repeat them.
Let me conclude with some thoughts about Vietnam and Iraq. Many speak of the ghosts or lessons of Vietnam. There is much we can learn from one of America's greatest foreign policy failures of the past 50 years. When considering our next steps in Iraq, a few lessons are unambiguously clear to me. The United States cannot succeed alone, and it cannot rely nearly exclusively on military power, even against a much weaker adversary, as was the case in Vietnam, and as would be the case in Iraq.
If the president decides to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein, we do not know what will follow. The inevitability of change does not determine the certainty of what comes next. Some, however, argue that change can only be to the good in the Middle East, a region with little experience in the ways of participatory politics and open economies. The people of the region deserve change. But kicking over the chessboard during a losing game does not assure victory when the game is reset. By the time the pieces are back in place, the game itself may have changed, and not assuredly for the better.
I do not necessarily believe that either chaos or a region on fire will follow Saddam's overthrow, nor do I see democracy taking quick root in Iraq and spreading throughout the Arab world after the Iraqi dictator has left the scene. What I do see is the beginning of an American engagement in Iraq and the Middle East that will require a commitment of American time, resources, and diplomacy for which the American people may neither be prepared for nor understand.
In thinking about Iraq's future, I recently returned to Iraq's past, to the proclamation issued by Lt. General Sir Stanley Maude on March 19, 1917, the day that British forces occupied Baghdad. General Maude said:
". . . I am charged with absolute and supreme control of all regions in which British troops operate; but our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators......O people of Baghdad remember that for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have endeavored to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her allies, for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity and misgovernment. Therefore I am commanded to invite you, through your nobles and elders and representatives, to participate in the management of your civil affairs in collaboration with the political representatives of Great Britain who accompany the British Army, so that you may be united with your kinsmen in North, East, South, and West in realising the aspirations of your race."
The British historian Stephen Helmsley Longrigg observed that Maude's proclamation "made no great impression" upon the people of Iraq, whose tribes three years later revolted against British rule, and whose aspirations, 86 years later, have yet to be realized.
History informs our understanding of the inevitability and uncertainty of change. American leadership and resources have given the world hope and help, as it continues to do in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where post-Communist and formerly authoritarian societies strive to build a better way of life for their people.
And history provides scores of examples of the pitfalls of hubris and the unforeseen consequences of war. Enlightened and wise leadership must guide us through the often difficult and unclear paths that characterize the dynamics of historic change in world affairs. American power must be balanced with a nobility of purpose grounded in the art of the possible.
Yes, we face a dangerous and uncertain world - but a world full of possibilities and opportunities. A world full of hope. A heavy burden rests upon America's broad willing shoulders. It is a familiar burden of destiny. America will not fail if it makes the world its partner in this noble cause of human dignity and freedom.