|
Nancy E. Soderberg
Deputy Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
United States Institute of Peace
U.S. Intervention in the Post Cold War Era
July 10, 1996
AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY:
Thank you, Dick (Solomon). I remember well those hard efforts
on behalf of human rights in China. It was the start of a
wonderful friendship which has led me here today. It's an honor
to be introduced by you today, and a pleasure to see so many
friendly and familiar faces. I'm especially glad to see my
former NSC colleague Stanley Roth -- currently the holder of the
Olympic record in the world's fastest transition from policy wonk
to pundit. I'm hoping he'll teach me his secrets.
I also want to thank the Institute of Peace for putting together
this impressive symposium. I am aware of the high expectations
associated with luncheon speakers... and I know, from having been
in your position, that coffee and dessert are often more
compelling than a lecture from the podium. So I have resolved to
follow the speechmaking advice President Franklin Roosevelt once
gave his son: “Be sincere; be brief; be seated.”
I would like to use my time with you to address American
intervention in the post-Cold War era -- how we decide to get
involved in matters beyond our borders.
For more than four decades, most American foreign policy was made
and measured in relation to the Soviet threat. Confronted by a
fierce, ideological rival -- a rival that possessed thousands of
nuclear warheads -- American policymakers rallied around a single
mission: containment. That banner slogan became the central
organizing concept for American foreign policy in the Cold War
era -- from where and when we intervened... to the creation of
security alliances... to whether and to whom we gave foreign
assistance.
Today, with the Cold War over, the security environment has
changed. To be sure, we still face threats to our national
security -- threats that demand traditional uses of American
power and diplomacy. Over the last three years, we have met
these familiar challenges with determination and success. But in
this new world, we also face a new type of challenge that I'd
like to discuss today: The new opportunities -- and new
responsibilities -- America has to make a difference. No
national consensus has emerged to date on what we should do in
these areas. Resources are tight, and once again, some voices
are preaching the path of isolation. But I believe the Clinton
Administration has laid the foundation for real progress. We
have worked decisively to bolster support for American leadership
in the world, not only in areas of traditional concern, but in
meeting the challenges of the 21st century as well.
First, let me address those challenges that reflect the
traditional focus of our power and diplomacy. The President's
primary responsibility is always to protect our citizens and our
shores. When matters of overriding importance to our national
security and survival are at stake -- such as a direct attack on
our soil, our people, or our allies -- we will do whatever it
takes to defend our interests, including the use of decisive
military force... with others where we can, and alone when we
must.
When Saddam Hussein's henchmen made an attempt on President
Bush's life, President Clinton took direct military action. When
Iraq moved forces toward the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we sent our
troops to the region and Saddam backed down. When North Korea
began removing spent fuel from its nuclear reactor that same
year, we broke off our negotiations and began working with our
allies toward international sanctions and making plans to augment
our military forces on the Peninsula. Pyongyang came back to
the table, ready to talk about terminating their dangerous
nuclear program.
America's armed forces are the core of our nation's power, and we
have kept our military the best-trained, best-equipped, best-
prepared in the world. We've strengthened and modernized our
core alliances in Europe and Asia -- maintaining about 100,000
troops in each region, setting the process of NATO enlargement in
motion, and forging a new security declaration with Japan. And
while a long-range missile threat to our shores is unlikely to
arise within the next 15 years, we are committed to developing a
National Missile Defense system by 2000 that can, if needed, be
deployed by 2003.
Just as we've strengthened our military ability to secure our
interests, we've also focused on our diplomatic power. President
Clinton has seized the opportunity the end of the Cold War
presents to reduce the nuclear threat -- by pursuing the most
ambitious arms control and non-proliferation agenda in history.
Today, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan have agreed to give up the
nuclear weapons left on their soil. START I and START II will
slash by 2/3 the nuclear arsenals that we and the Soviet Union
held at the height of the Cold War. We secured indefinite
extension of the NPT... are urging the earliest Senate
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention... hope to sign a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty this year... and have broadened
international support for the Missile Technology Control Regime.
These efforts and achievements are in the interest of every
American's security.
We've also led the fight against an increasingly interconnected
array of forces of destruction -- like terrorists, drug
traffickers, and organized criminals. These threats have little
regard for national borders. No nation is immune -- and none can
defeat them alone.
Since taking office, President Clinton has marshaled our
resources and galvanized world efforts against these threats. He
has attacked state-sponsored terrorism with stiff sanctions on
rogue nations... enacted tough counterterrorism legislation that
gives law enforcement the tools they need to fight terrorists at
home... and mobilized the world community, from the Summit of
Peacemakers in Sharm El-Sheikh to the recent G-7 summit in Lyon.
But the skeletal remains of the Khobar Towers in Dhahran are a
brutal reminder that our work is far from over. As the President
has said, America must not and will not be driven from this
battle.
We also understand the importance of engagement with the world's
other great powers -- those nations that have the greatest
ability to help or hinder us in our efforts. We've worked
steadily and intensively with Russia to help it seize the promise
of a democratic future -- and last week's run-off confirmed that
the Russian people want to stay the path of reform.
We've fortified our strategic dialogue with China, using the best
tools available -- incentives and disincentives alike -- to
advance American interests. That was the purpose of Tony Lake's
trip over the last few days to Beijing. When we disagree with
China, we defend our interests vigorously... and when China
expanded its military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, we made
clear that any use of force against Taiwan would have grave
consequences. But by engaging China, we have helped achieve
important benefits -- from cooperation toward a Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty to freezing North Korea's dangerous nuclear
program.
Deterring -- and defending our nation if necessary -- against
attacks on our vital interests, reducing the nuclear threat,
fighting forces of destruction like terrorism, and staying
engaged with other great powers, are clearly the most serious
foreign policy challenges... and also the most straightforward.
In deciding how and when to meet them, the calculus is clear: We
must and will marshal whatever resources we need to get the job
done right. Protecting our most fundamental national security
interests is always the primary focus and concern of any American
president.
The second category of challenge is what I would call “new
responsibilities and opportunities,” which demand new responses
and new thinking.
Let me divide these new responsibilities and opportunities into
four general areas in which we can use our influence as the sole
remaining superpower: 1) to promote peace, 2) to strengthen
democracy, 3) to prevent conflicts, and 4) to alleviate crises.
Some would argue against our engagement in areas where there is
no overriding direct threat to our interests. President Clinton
sees the situation differently. During the Cold War, we resisted
actions that diverted our resources from the overwhelming
struggle at hand. Today, we are freed from that constraint.
This does not mean we should intervene everywhere, or respond to
every emergency. But as the world's most powerful nation --
economically, militarily, and through the sheer force of our
values -- we cannot simply turn our backs on tragedy or
opportunity.
In choosing how and when to get involved, we must ask a number of
critical questions, including the following four: Will our
efforts advance American interests and ideals? Will they be
successful? Are they a good use of our limited resources? And,
how do our interests compare to the costs and risks? Once we
have answered these questions, we must carefully decide which
tools we are willing to apply -- from the power of our example,
persistent diplomacy, and economic aid or sanctions to military
force.
First, let me address promoting peace. The end of the Cold War
has lifted the lid on religious and ethnic conflicts such as we
saw in Bosnia... where ethnic hatred spiraled into a war that
claimed thousands of lives, threatened stability in the heart of
Europe, and did violence to the values on which America stands.
Early in 1993, the President decided he would only send ground
troops to Bosnia to help implement a peace agreement, because the
costs of intervening as combatants were too high when balanced
against our interests.
However, we used every other tool in our arsenal to search for
peace, prevent the war from spreading, and ease the suffering of
the Bosnian people. We imposed tough economic sanctions on
Serbia... stationed troops in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia to contain the spread of the fighting... provided air
suport for UNPROFOR...conducted the longest humanitarian airlift
in history... enforced a no fly zone... and helped to make peace
between Bosnia's Muslims and Croats.
But last summer, when Bosnia's Serbs stepped up their brutality
and another winter of disaster loomed, President Clinton launched
his own diplomatic effort -- backed by military force -- to bring
the warring parties to the peace table. The combination of heavy
NATO air strikes and intensive American diplomacy, together with
the renewed determination of our European partners and the Croat
gains on the battlefield, were what made the Dayton peace
conference possible.
Today, our troops are serving heroically in Bosnia -- not
fighting in a war, but helping to secure the peace that American
leadership helped achieve. And the success of our military
operation in Bosnia has been strengthened by the lessons we
learned in Somalia -- about the importance of a clear military
mission, firm deadlines, and an exit strategy.
There are other areas in which the investment of American
resources has gone a long way for peace. The President has
worked hard to build on the efforts of previous Administrations
in the Middle East, and we all admire the determined diplomacy of
Secretary Christopher and his team. In the last three years, we
have witnessed historic agreements between Palestinians and
Israelis and between Israel and Jordan. In Northern Ireland, the
President's decision to use our leverage as a close and trusted
partner of both Great Britain and Ireland has spurred
unprecedented breakthroughs: a 17 month cease-fire that saved
hundreds of lives and peace talks that began last month in
Belfast. There remains much to be done -- beginning with the
restoration of the cease-fire -- but we can be proud of the
difference our engagement has made. In Cyprus, our special envoy
Richard Beattie is working hard to resolve the problem. He is
the first person to take on this important role since 1980, and
will be traveling to the region with Ambassador Albright next
week to try to build momentum toward a comprehensive settlement.
Second, let me address strengthening democracy. The rising tide
of freedom around the world is helping shape a world in which
America can thrive -- but it is neither inevitable nor
irreversible. It needs our support and our leadership.
In Haiti, the Administration mobilized the international
community to isolate the brutal dictatorship that had overthrown
the legitimate government. We had important interests in shoring
up democracy in our hemisphere, ending the abuse of human rights,
and stemming the tide of desperate refugees... and we tried every
peaceful avenue to achieve our goals. But when it became clear
that peaceful means alone would not succeed, the President
decided to back his diplomacy with force. When Haiti's generals
learned our planes were in the air, they stepped aside in a
hurry. Our troops were able to enter Haiti peacefully, and to
help the Haitian people reclaim their democracy. By defining our
interests clearly and using the tools at our disposal
effectively, we achieved all our goals with a minimum of
violence. Today, Haiti has achieved the first democratic
transfer of power in its history, and its people have a chance
for a brighter future.
We have worked to promote democracy in other, though less
dramatic ways, including tightened sanctions against Cuba,
marshaling international condemnation of near coups in Paraguay
and Sao Tome and Principe, and working in partnership with Europe
to consolidate the gains of Central Europe's new democracies.
Our assistance programs are making a difference in building
judicial systems, helping monitor elections and teaching
political party development and promoting sustainable
development. Democrats from Beijing to Bucharest and beyond look
first to America for inspiration.
We are leading the effort to pressure those still bucking the
tide of democracy -- such as the military rulers in Nigeria and
Burma -- by isolating the leaders while trying to press them to
move forward. Progress is often painfully slow, but in the end,
history is on the side of democracy and we can and must push it
along.
Third, as Michael Lund so thoughtfully discusses in his book, the
United States can also use its influence to prevent conflicts
before they erupt and become a more serious drain on our
resources. I doubt many Americans are aware that we have troops
on the border between Peru and Ecuador to help safeguard peace
between these two friends of the United States. We helped our
NATO allies Greece and Turkey avoid a conflict over the Aegean
island of Imia. And we have launched an intensive diplomatic
effort to prevent another Rwanda-like genocide in Burundi. In
the last year alone, Ambassador Albright, Deputy Secretary
Talbott, NSA Anthony Lake, Assistant Secretary Moose, Deputy
Director of Central Intelligence Tenet, and now Special
Representative Howard Wolpe have all traveled to the region to
help promote reconciliation.
Some may argue that we should not put so much effort in a place
with so little bearing on American interests. I would argue that
it is a small investment compared to the one we would have to
make if Burundi exploded. In Rwanda, for example, where the
international community failed to act quickly enough to prevent
the genocide, the United States was spurred into action as images
of the atrocities captured our attention and our conscience. I
am proud that the U.S. military was able to kick-start the relief
effort -- delivering nearly 15,000 tons of food, medicine, and
supplies to Rwanda's refugees, and then handing the operation
back to the relief community. But the crisis in Rwanda was
costly, first and foremost in Rwandan lives. And no matter how
admirable our intervention was, we are trying to avoid the need
to repeat it in Burundi.
The fourth area of opportunity, alleviating crises-- both man-
made and natural -- is a simple calculation of costs and need.
In Rwanda, we could not stand by as images of the disaster poured
out, when we knew we had unique abilities to help. Similarly,
when complex crises from the Balkans to the Caribbean to West
Africa threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands, or when
earthquakes result in devastation in Japan, America can and
should respond. We continue to be in the forefront of
international efforts to respond to humanitarian need,
contributing some $1.5 billion each year for these efforts.
Moreover, this level of commitment reflects a strong executive-
congressional consensus. By showing the strength to be generous
and humane, we reinforce our authority as the leader of the
global community.
Over the last three years, I believe this Administration has made
a real difference for our people and others -- by knowing how to
use the right tool at the right time, by marshaling our resources
and leveraging our power. Our efforts may lack the simple
clarity of the past. But that's not necessarily bad. In today's
new world of fast-paced innovation, part of being strong means
being able to adapt -- to fortify old structures to withstand
modern challenges, to anticipate new problems before they arise,
and to make the investments that will bring greater pay-offs, or
prevent greater costs, down the line.
Whenever we are faced with pressures to act, we carefully balance
our interests against the costs. But there are times when
America, and America alone, can make the crucial difference
between fear and hope. We must not shrink from our
responsibility to lead... and those in Congress who would slash
our modest foreign affairs budget are playing dangerous politics
with America's well-being.
For 50 years, our country has been the world's greatest force for
freedom and progress, and it has brought us real security and
prosperity here at home. If we continue to lead, if we continue
to meet the peril and seize the promise of this new era, that
proud history will also be our destiny. That is President
Clinton's goal -- and that is what we who work with him are
determined to achieve. We don't have magic solutions for every
challenge we face. But at the end of the day, the bottom line is
clear: because of our efforts, our nation is more secure, our
people are more prosperous, and our values are ascendant all
around the world. We are laying the foundations for the 21st
century to be an American century as well.
Thank you.
President and First Lady | Vice President and Mrs. Gore Record of Progress | The Briefing Room Gateway to Government | Contacting the White House White House for Kids | White House History White House Tours | Help | Text Only Privacy Statement | NSC Speeches U.S Institute of Peace International Non-Proliferation Conference National Security Advisor at Stanford University Brookings Africa Forum Luncheon - May 1993 Council on Foreign Relations 10th Anniversary of the Center for Democracy Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Foreign Policy Agenda for the 2nd Term Chicago Council of Foreign Relations Meeting New Security Challenges The Road Forward in Bosnia Great Lakes Naval Training Center Insitute for the Study of Diplomacy U.S. - Russian Business Council Bosnia After Dayton Carnegie Endowment National Defense University Commencement Marshall Legacy Symposium Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith Remarks Before European Institute 1996 American Jewish Committee The Wilson Center Remarks by Samuel R. Berger at The Business Roundtable U.S. Institute for Peace, September 30, 1999 The Middle East on the Eve of The Millennium, October 20, 1999 Address to the Council on Foreign Relations, October 21, 1999 Address to the Bilderberg Steering Committee, November 11, 1999 National Press Club, February 13, 1998 National Press Club, January 6, 2000 Business Executives for National Security, May 5, 1998 National Press Club, October 30, 1998 Washington Forum of Business Executives National Press Club, December 23, 1998 Council on Foreign Relations, July 26, 1999 Africare Dinner, September 27, 1999 Remarks to Mayors' Summit on Africa | |