Senate Foreign Relations Committee Holds Hearing on US Foreign Policy

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Holds Hearing on U.S. Foreign Policy

LUGAR:

This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is called to order.

Mr. Secretary, we welcome you.

The purpose of the hearing this morning is to exchange views on the State Department budget for the coming year. And we want to hear from you about the need of the State Department in this era when it occupies the front lines in the war against terrorism.

I want to compliment you, as I know all members will, on your efforts to expand funding for the State Department and for foreign assistance programs. You have brought a very important strategic understanding to budgetary questions involving the department.

This committee could not ask for a better partner in explaining why your work and the work of all those at the department is so critical in protecting American citizens from future acts of terrorism. The progress you've made in the last two years has begun to reverse the damaging slide in diplomatic capabilities that occurred through much of the 1990s.

In the years following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States slashed the resources available to diplomatic activities and to foreign assistance.

In 2001, the share of the United States budget devoted to the international affairs account stood at a paltry 1.18 percent, barely above its post-World War II low and only about half of its share in the mid-1980s. This slide occurred even as the State Department was incurring the heavy added costs of establishing new missions in the 15 states of the former Soviet Union.

Even after a healthy increase in the last fiscal year, the U.S. foreign assistance, in constant dollars, has declined about 44 percent since Ronald Reagan's presidency in 1985, and about 18 percent since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The United States devotes about one-tenth of one percent of our gross national product to economic assistance, ranking in this category last among the 21 major providers of aid in the developing world.

The September 11 attacks jarred our country out of its complacency toward foreign threats, and your efforts have translated this renewed awareness into more resources.

What is still missing from American political discourse is support for the painstaking work of foreign policy and the indisputable role that diplomacy plays in our strategic efforts to win the war on terrorism.

Mr. Secretary, even as we convene here to discuss diplomatic budgeting and capabilities, there is not a sole in the room who is not aware that you are joining us on this day after a very important mission to the United Nations. A few of our questions today will surely stray from the intricacies of the 150 budget account. But even as we bring up Iraq, North Korea, the war against terrorism, I hope that members will keep in mind the connection between the immediate crises that we will be talking about and the broader questions of our foreign policy capabilities.

The ability of our military to defeat Iraq has never been in question. What has been in doubt are factors related to our diplomatic strength and our standing in the world. Can we get a positive vote in the Security Council? Can we secure the necessary basing and overflight rights? Can we limit anti-American reaction to the war in the Arab world or elsewhere? Can we secure allied participants in the work of reconstructing Iraq in the event that war is necessary?

Successful answers to these questions depend largely on diplomatic work done by your department between crises, and they depend on the work funded by the very budget that we discuss today.

Mr. Secretary, recently I outlined the five foreign policy campaigns that I believe must be undertaken to win the war on terrorism—and I use "win" in this case very deliberately.

Our soldiers can fight the war against terrorism, and they are doing so in Afghanistan bravely, selflessly and successfully.

But we will not win this war through attrition. To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign United States economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority we assign to military capabilities. And the first of these five campaigns necessary to win the war is expanding our investments in diplomats, embassy security, foreign assistance and other tools of foreign policy.

If a greater commitment of resources can prevent the bombing of one of our embassies, secure alliance participation and expensive peacekeeping efforts or improved detection of terrorists seeking visas, the investment will have yielded dividends far beyond its cost.

Second, we need to expand and globalize the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs to ensure to the maximum extent possible that weapons of mass destruction are not transferred to terrorists.

And third, we must promote trade, which is essential to building the prosperity that can dampen terrorist recruitment and political resentment,

Fourth, we must strengthen alliances so that we have partners who will share financial burdens and support our efforts against terrorism.

And fifth, we must reinvigorate our commitment to democracy, expanding global energy supplies, protecting the international environment and accelerating development.

How will we know when we are winning? One, when every other nation also rallies against Al Qaida. Two, when foreign law enforcement officials are willing and able to track down and arrest Al Qaida cells operating in their territory. Three, when Al Qaida's message no longer strikes a responsive chord in the Muslim world. Four, when whole sections of Islamic society have been lifted from conditions of abject poverty. And fifth, when failed states can no longer harbor Al Qaida.
No military force, no matter how vigilant (ph), can achieve those goals. They can only be achieved diplomatically and with a strong and effective foreign policy.

We are spending less than eight cents on foreign policy of every dollar that goes to defense. Your job here today, Mr. Secretary, is to convince us, and through us our colleagues, that we have the will, the capacity and the resources to win the war on terrorism.

It's my privilege now to turn to the distinguished ranking member of our committee, Senator Biden, for his opening statement.

LUGAR:

Thank you very much, Senator Biden.

Let me just announce quickly that one of the concerns of—and the same with the senator from Delaware—namely the future governance of Iraq, will be the subject of our hearing next Tuesday. And that will have, I think, a great deal of interest for members of the committee as well as the country. And on Wednesday, we'll be talking about the future governance of Afghanistan, our role there and what we may be able to do to American diplomacy to assist the valiant people of Afghanistan.

Mr. Secretary, I understand likewise, I want to announce to the committee that due to understandable commitments you have here and elsewhere in the world, that we will try to conclude your testimony at noon or before. And therefore, with the concurrence of the ranking member, we'll have a five minute question period so that all members can be accommodated. And we will try to get to each.

I thank you very much for coming, sir. And please proceed with your testimony.

LUGAR:

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

I want to use my five minutes to make comments and maybe a question, if we have an opportunity.

First of all, thank you for recognizing the work of our committee in forwarding the Moscow Treaty to the floor of the Senate by unanimous vote. I would just say that the committee met on an urgent basis after an e-mail from Senator Biden and myself to be there at 10 so we could finish by 10:30 and hear you at the U.N.

POWELL:

Any time it serves your purpose again, Mr. Chairman, I will go back to the U.N.

(LAUGHTER)

BIDEN:

We may ask you to make a couple more major speeches to get a quorum.

LUGAR:

I thank all members of the committee; 13 arrived quickly, a quorum was present. We had really good comments from a number of members and action, and I hope we can get floor activity on the Moscow Treaty and, we alert all members that we anticipate that and hope we can do that during February.

Let me also mention that I appreciate your budget item for nonproliferation. That, of course, will be matched and maybe exceeded by monies in the defense budget and the Department of Energy budget. Many members will have committee responsibilities on this committee and elsewhere. But I would like the support of the department, as we try to think through how the Nunn-Lugar type cooperative threat reduction effort might pertain to other countries.

LUGAR:

I don't want to extrapolate well beyond where diplomacy may go. But there may come a time when in working with North Korea, for example, we suggest to them that we might be helpful in securing weapons or materials of mass destruction or helping in the destruction of those, not, I think, a far-fetched idea anymore than it was with regard to the former Soviet Union at an earlier time.

Likewise, we may be able to work with other friendly countries, India and Pakistan and others who have developed these weapons, but find real responsibilities in securing all the material against those who would venture into their provinces.
So I ask for your help in helping to enlarge the scope of American diplomacy and the understanding in the administration of the nonproliferation area.

I compliment you on specifically mentioning 80,000 young people who have come to the department to take the Foreign Service Exam. And I would point out that—and you witnessed this, Mr. Secretary, as you came into this caucus room today—there are tens, maybe hundreds of young people here in this hearing or down the hallway trying to get into the hearing. That is great.

Now, the problem that I foresee here, however, is the one you pointed out, for several years we had no exam, there were no lieutenants or anybody else coming into the ranks.

So reports now have identified hardship posts at many of our diplomatic stations that are sometimes filled by officers that do not have really all the requirements that would normally be available. That is one of the legacies of failing to recruit, failing to have the brightest come to the department.

Now, we've turned that around. What I hope maybe in more detail for the record you may be able to offer is how we are meeting this hardship post situation. Literally, how, even given the problems that you have, you're filling in, because that is of the essence in terms of our diplomacy in the toughest areas, where many of these young people are going—are going to be recruited to go.

Likewise, for the record, you've mentioned the communication situation, which is still critical. You pointed out correctly that your address to the United Nations was sent out to all of the embassies promptly. You mention even in your conversation with Foreign Minister Ivanov of Russia, you were able to talk about the Moscow Treaty, action we were taking back here even as you were about to take action at the U.N.; tremendously important.

But what I hope you can detail to us more is how the money in this budget really brings up to speed our embassies all over the world, which during my visits are not up to speed in many ways. Commercial establishments of American businesses move at much greater speed than does our diplomatic corps. And we really have to be on top of this if we're to do it.

I would compliment you specifically, because in our visit this morning you've mentioned, in addition to your speech at the United Nations, you had a luncheon with all the Security Council members and then visited one-on-one with 13 of them.
Now, that is very important for the American people to understand. This, no amount of communication around the world will achieve. But to augment your personal advocacy and leadership this kind of message-carrying is just of the essence. And so please detail for us so that we can be better advocates in this budget for those specific needs.

Finally, just let me say, I hope you can help us in getting before us a plan for Afghanistan. Now, I appreciate, as always the case, a certain amount of ad hoc strategy-making, planning has to occur. But now we're in a situation, it seems to me, of the intermediate or the long run in which there has to be some confidence that this country knows where it's going and other countries know where we're going. They're dependent upon that leadership. I think it's there somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

And so, I hope that you will flesh out, or with the secretary of defense or with others, an administration plan for Afghanistan that we can foresee in the same way that Senator Biden has talked about a plan for Iraq, which we'll be concentrating on Tuesday; Afghanistan, as I mentioned, on Wednesday.

I've consumed my time, and therefore I will not really ask you to use your time except, if you want, to make a short response.

POWELL:

I'll make a very short response, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to hardship posts, we're working very hard on it. I hope you may have noticed an article in the newspaper not too long ago where the State Department is the number one department in government in using forgiveness of student loans or setting aside student loan obligations for those who are willing to go to our hardship posts.

And we are also, once again, communicating throughout the department the culture of the department. We go where we are sent. We are service persons. We are men and women who serve where the service is needed. And we will take care of these hardship posts. But it's a lot easier when we are given the resources that we need in order to hire the people who are willing to take on these difficult jobs.

People hear hardship post and they don't always understand what that means. It means you're asking a foreign service officer who might have a family, children, to go to a place where there are no schools, where there is no hospital in case your child becomes ill, and where the living accommodations are not near any standard you would like. We're asking people to go do that for their country. And the wonderful thing is, we do have people who'll do that and will do that.

I'd like to just brag about one more thing. The last Foreign Service Exam we gave, among those who passed the exam was 38 percent minority. So we are working out, working very hard to make our Foreign Service look like our country. The beautiful diversity that is the strength of this country should be reflected in the Foreign Service.

On information technology, we can go into that at another time in exquisite detail. It's a subject that I love very much.
And on our plan for Afghanistan, we are willing to spend much more time with the committee on it, and, of course, you have the hearing next week.

I think we should be very proud of what we've accomplished in Afghanistan in just a little over a year. There is a functioning government. They're slowly reaching out throughout the country.

POWELL:

It is still a dangerous place, but not as dangerous as it used to be. It is not as out of control as people suggest. And the glass is more than half-full, in my judgment, and it is with each passing day becoming less and less of a crystal glass and more of a beer mug that will stand some of the pressures that were placed upon it.

Thank you, sir.

LUGAR:

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I just have to pause to underline this remarkable statistic you just shared with us; in this rigorous, merit-based test of the Foreign Service, 38 percent who passed were minorities. An important point. And I appreciate your making that.

Senator Biden?

LUGAR:

Thank you very much, Senator Sununu.

Mr. Secretary, yesterday you mentioned seeing 13 members of the Security Council one-on-one. Today you have met 15 senators one-on- one. And you have been...

POWELL:

Don't ask me which is easier, please.

(LAUGHTER)

LUGAR:

I thank you—and complete in your responses.

Let me ask that the record remain open until the close of business on Friday for additional questions. And I would request that you, Secretary Powell, respond to those questions that might be asked by members who could not attend or those who have thought of other questions, even in the course of this dialogue.

We thank you very much.