Transcript: Albright Gives Cohen Lecture at University of Maine

"The world is shaped not by those who merely inherit, but by those who act. And if we discard the cloak of leadership, others who may not share our interests or values will surely pick it up," Albright said as she presented the annual William Cohen Lecture at the university -- named for Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, a former Republican Senator from Maine.

America's task, she said, "is to forge a steadily growing consensus, based on steadily rising standards, that will help bring nations on every continent closer together around basic principles of democracy and open markets, the rule of law and a commitment to peace."

Albright urged the U.S. Congress to back up America's national security leadership with adequate resources. She noted that Congress in a recent vote had slashed $2 billion from President Clinton's Fiscal Year 2000 budget for foreign aid appropriations.

"The result, if this bill were to become law, would be to cut foreign affairs resources below even their currently inadequate levels. This would create a clear and present danger to American interests, which is why President Clinton has vowed to veto the bill," she said.

Albright also discussed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) now awaiting a Senate vote on ratification. "However the Senate votes," she said, "the world should not doubt America's commitment to reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. We will continue both to advance our program for assuring the reliability of our nuclear deterrent and to observe a moratorium on nuclear explosive tests. We will continue to support the international monitoring system the Treaty would establish.

"We will persist in urging others to join the agreement and to refrain from tests prohibited by it," said the Secretary. "And surely," she added, "there will be further discussion of the merits of the Treaty here at home, because there is no question that this landmark pact would serve both our national interests and the cause of world peace."

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
(Bangor, Maine)

(Text as Prepared for Delivery)

Secretary Albright
The William Cohen Lecture, University of Maine

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for that introduction and for welcoming me to your home. President Hoff, Chancellor MacTaggart, Dean Brucker, former President Hutchinson, President Miller, faculty and students of the University of Maine, guests and friends, good morning.

I have long felt a kinship for Maine because of the years I spent working for Senator Ed Muskie, my first boss.

He was a plain speaker, who accomplished much and understood deeply the connections between American strength at home and our leadership overseas. Aside from my parents, he remains my greatest hero and I look forward to going with Secretary Cohen later in the day to visit the Muskie archives.

I am also delighted to be invited to deliver the William Cohen lecture. It is named for someone I deeply admire. For a quarter of a century, Bill Cohen has been one of America's most outstanding and respected public servants.

While others have given their first allegiance to party, or to some narrow ideology, or even to some special interest, Bill Cohen has devoted himself to Maine and to America. You must be very proud of him, as I am, to serve with him.

Another reason I am pleased to be here is that I am a former professor. I love academic surroundings. And on the flight up -- or I guess down -- to Maine, I was thinking about my own days in school. Even then, I was very interested in foreign policy. Every time I went to a new town or school, I would start an international affairs club -- and name myself President.

But it is not only because of my insatiable appetite for power that I became interested in foreign policy. The truth is I couldn't help it. When I was growing up, events overseas shaped almost everything about my life.

I was still a toddler when the Nazis overran my native Czechoslovakia and plunged the world into global conflict. Later, the Holocaust shook our faith in humanity itself. The dawn of the nuclear era called into question the very survival of our race. The Cold War divided the world into two well-armed camps.

And periodic crises in Korea, Hungary, Berlin, Cuba, Prague and Vietnam made us keenly aware of the dangers that existed and the responsibilities that we as Americans had.

Today, all this may seem as relevant as a manual typewriter or a long playing record. The Soviet Union no longer exists. We are the world's lone superpower.

As a result, it may be tempting to look upon international affairs as just another academic subject, something to read about and debate, but not a determining factor in our lives. And that temptation exists not just for students, but for all of us.

There is grave danger in this. For it may be that we Americans have come to feel safer than we truly are. And it is certainly true that if we were to become complacent, and to take our security, prosperity and freedom for granted, we would endanger them all.

We cannot simply assume that because the Cold War has ended, the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction have disappeared; or that because free markets are ascendant, global prosperity is assured; or that because nations communicate more, they will fight less; or that because totalitarianism has been defeated in many places, it is gone everywhere and will not rise again.

The world is shaped not by those who merely inherit, but by those who act. And if we discard the cloak of leadership, others who may not share our interests or values will surely pick it up.

Earlier generations of Americans turned the tide in the first global war, defeated the greatest evil the world has known, and defended freedom through decades of Cold War.

Our task is different, and seemingly less dramatic, but no less important. It is to forge a steadily growing consensus, based on steadily rising standards, that will help bring nations on every continent closer together around basic principles of democracy and open markets, the rule of law and a commitment to peace.

As a goal, that is as easy to say as it is difficult to achieve. Like freedom itself, it is something we will never fully achieve, but can only pursue. And if America is to lead the world in the right direction, as we must, we will have to make good use of every available foreign policy tool.

That means our armed forces must remain the best led, best trained, best equipped and most respected in the world. And as President Clinton has pledged, and Secretary Cohen and our military leaders assure, they will.

But we will also need first-class diplomacy. Because on many occasions, we will rely on diplomacy as our first line of defense -- to cement alliances, build coalitions, and find ways to protect our interests without putting our fighting men and women at risk.

At the same time, our diplomacy is stronger because we have the threat of force behind it. In this way, force and diplomacy complement each other. It's like having Pedro Martinez to do your pitching and Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa to bat cleanup.

It is by combining force and diplomacy, for example, that we protect Americans from the threat posed by nuclear weapons.

Here, the military deterrent provided by our armed forces and the technological edge they enjoy are indispensable. But we will all sleep better if our deterrent is never used. The diplomatic challenge is to create a political environment in which serious military threats to our country are less likely to arise.

That is why, since 1992, our support has helped deactivate almost 5,000 nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union; eliminated nuclear weapons from three former Soviet Republics; and purchased more than 60 tons of highly-enriched uranium that could have been used by terrorists or outlaw states to build such arms.

We are also helping 30,000 former Soviet weapons scientists find employment in peaceful commercial ventures, so they are not tempted to sell their expertise to those who might do us harm.

We are taking steps, as well, to protect ourselves from the new threats posed by ballistic missiles. Here, the military job is to maintain our deterrent and develop the best defensive technology possible. The diplomatic job is to ensure that in responding to new dangers, we do not act rashly and aggravate or revive old ones.

Finally, we have called upon the Senate to approve a Treaty that would ban nuclear explosive tests of any size, for any reason, in any place -- for all time.

As we speak, the outcome of debate is uncertain. The Senate could vote to delay consideration, or not to approve American participation.

The comprehensive test ban has been a goal of U.S. Presidents since Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy. It promises to slow both the development and spread of new and more dangerous nuclear weapons. The Treaty has been widely endorsed by our military and scientific leaders, because it would make our nation more secure and our world safer.

The United States today has no plans and no need to conduct nuclear explosive tests. It is plainly in our interests to discourage others from doing so, as well. The Treaty would do that by banning tests and establishing a global monitoring system to detect cheaters.

However the Senate votes, the world should not doubt America's commitment to reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. We will continue both to advance our program for assuring the reliability of our nuclear deterrent and to observe a moratorium on nuclear explosive tests. We will continue to support the international monitoring system the Treaty would establish.

We will persist in urging others to join the agreement and to refrain from tests prohibited by it. And surely there will be further discussion of the merits of the Treaty here at home, because there is no question that this landmark pact would serve both our national interests and the cause of world peace.

A second example of where we use force and diplomacy to safeguard American security is by striving to reduce the risks posed by regional conflicts.

Because the United States has unique capabilities and standing, it is natural that others will turn to us in time of emergency. In one sense, that is gratifying, but it also leads to difficult, damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't, choices.

American actions must reflect American interests. Neither our armed forces nor our prestige should be committed lightly. And when we decide on a course of action, we should not rest until our goals are achieved.

The question, of course, is when, where and how America should engage. There is no mathematical formula for arriving at such judgments. Before launching a diplomatic initiative, or considering the use of troops, a President must weigh our interests against a matrix of past commitments, present capabilities, future hopes and enduring values.

He, or she, must marry principle to pragmatism, so that we are not only able to do the right thing, but also to do the thing right. The risks of action must be balanced against the risks of not acting. And America's stake must be reflected in the nature and extent of America's commitment.

Taking all this into account, I believe Americans can be proud of the part we have played in supporting peacemakers over bombthrowers in key regions of the world.

For example, President Clinton and another of Maine's extraordinary former Senators, George Mitchell, have been deeply involved in efforts to end the century long strife in Northern Ireland.

In the Middle East, we have entered a new and more hopeful stage in the peace process. For the first time in years, Israelis and Palestinians are talking directly to each other, negotiating directly, and looking for creative ways to address each other's concerns.

America will do all it can to support the parties in their pursuit of peace. This is true not only between the Israelis and Palestinians, but also for the entire region. Daunting obstacles remain, but a just, lasting and comprehensive Middle East peace is within our grasp. This is an opportunity leaders in the region must seize, for there could be no greater gift to the future.

In East Timor, we are participating in a UN-authorized force, led by Australia and Thailand, to shield civilians from violence and allow them to shape their own destiny in accordance with the popular will. Secretary Cohen was in Indonesia last month, where he conveyed our message which is firm, but fair.

We fully back Indonesia's efforts to strengthen its democracy. But we also expect the Indonesian armed forces to disarm militias in West Timor and prevent them from threatening the East. Too often, during the past few months, those charged with preserving order have conspired with the enemies of order. That is a crime against the people of East Timor, and unacceptable to the world.

We are also working with leaders in Africa to end the numerous conflicts that have generated suffering and slowed progress on that continent. Next week, I will travel to Africa for the third time in my current job. I will make clear America's commitment to assist, not by trying to impose solutions, but by supporting the implementation of African solutions and ideas.

Finally, in Kosovo, we continue to meld force and diplomacy in a manner that serves U.S. interests while upholding values that we cherish.

Southeast Europe has been a source of dangerous instability through much of this century. It is where World War I began, battles in World War II were fought, and Europe's worst violence in 50 years occurred this decade. It would have been irresponsible -- and unconscionable -- if America and NATO had simply stood by when Slobodan Milosevic launched his ruthless campaign of ethnic cleansing.

At the outset, we used diplomacy backed by the threat of force to deter Milosevic, and achieve a peaceful settlement. When Belgrade chose instead to attack, we responded with force while working diplomatically to maintain allied unity and explain NATO's intentions.

Later, we used diplomacy to isolate Milosevic, enlist Russia on the side of peace, and gain Security Council support for an international peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Now we are working jointly, through military and civilian institutions, to build peace, aid economic recovery and lay the groundwork for democratic self-government.

In recent weeks, we have heard some suggest that America need not concern itself when aggression or atrocities are committed overseas, unless they are committed directly against us.

Obviously, we neither can nor should try to right every wrong or fight every fight. But the history of this century warns us that problems abroad, if left unattended, will all too often come home to America. We have a strong interest in acting where we can to prevent disagreements in key regions from becoming conflicts; and in containing conflicts before they become all out wars.

At the same time, except in extreme cases, America cannot go it alone. More often than not, the American role should be that of energizer or coalition-builder. Or perhaps we will provide limited amounts of specialized assistance. But if global standards are to be enforced and international stability maintained, many nations, not just the United States, have indispensable parts to fill.

A third area in which we use force and diplomacy to protect American interests is in response to what Secretary Cohen has called the "grave new world" of terror.

Because we are the world's strongest democracy, potential enemies may try to attack us by unconventional means, including terrorist strikes and the possible use of chemical or biological weapons.

In countering these threats, we must be prepared at home and overseas. That is why we are taking strong security measures and -- at President Clinton's direction -- improving our planning for emergency response.

Through our diplomacy, we help train friendly governments in counterterrorism, offer rewards for terrorist suspects, and gather information to advise and warn Americans.

We strive to forge international agreements that will leave terrorists with no place to run, no place to hide, no place to operate and no place to keep their assets.

And we do all we can to bring suspected terrorists to the bar of justice, as we have in several major cases, including the sabotage of Pan Am 103, and the bombing last summer of two American embassies in Africa.

Above all, we make it clear to terrorists that their efforts to make America abandon its responsibilities will never succeed. The nation whose finest raised the flag at Iwo Jima and plunged into Hell on Omaha Beach will not be intimidated.

Old Glory will continue to fly wherever we have interests to defend.

We will meet our commitments.

We will do all we can to protect our people.

And we will wage the struggle against terrorism on every front, on every continent, with every tool, every day.

Before closing, I want to say just a few words about the need to back up our national security leadership with resources.

Over the past five years, the funds we annually invest in international affairs have declined by roughly 20 percent from the prior five year period. Unfortunately, the world is not 20% smaller or less dangerous.

And what has been a very bad situation is now at risk of becoming much worse.

Last week, Congress voted to slash President Clinton's Fiscal Year 2000 budget request by $2 billion.

The result, if this bill were to become law, would be to cut foreign affairs resources below even their currently inadequate levels. This would create a clear and present danger to American interests, which is why President Clinton has vowed to veto the bill.

The proposed reductions do not even include another $2.6 billion in emergency needs that we have identified since the President's budget was prepared. The result is a potential shortfall of such size that it would be nearly impossible for me to do my job; and I think Secretary Cohen agrees much harder for him to do his.

Let us be clear what we are talking about. Most of the funds we spend on international affairs cannot fairly be called foreign aid; they aid America.

When we provide resources to safeguard nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, or help South American farmers find alternatives to growing coca, or train foreign police in counter-terrorism, we are aiding America.

When we take steps to keep regional disputes from exploding into conflicts that could require the presence of U.S. troops, we aid America.

When we negotiate trade agreements that open overseas markets to Maine seafood, paper products or high technology, we are helping America.

When our visa offices enable six million foreign tourists and other travelers to visit the United States annually, while keeping known criminals out; we help and protect Americans.

Even when we assist other countries in meeting such needs as clearing land mines, caring for refugees, and fighting HIV/AIDS, we are serving America's long-term interests and staying true to America's permanent values.

Taken together, our international programs help make our citizens safer, our economy stronger, our world more stable and our freedoms more secure.

Many Americans are surprised when I tell them that the amount we allocate for foreign affairs is equal not to a quarter, or dime, or even a nickel, but only to about one penny of every dollar the Federal government spends. But that penny can spell the difference between hard times and good times for our people, war and peace for our country, less and more freedom for our world.

The budget debate in Washington revolves around real issues that relate to the role of the Federal Government in such matters as education and health care. But the protection of national security is one of our government's most basic tasks.

It is a centerpiece of our Constitution and why our country first came together. It cannot be delegated, subcontracted, privatized or left for others to do. It is the solemn responsibility of the Executive and Legislative branches in Washington, each according to its role.

The best leaders of both parties in Congress understand this. They know that American diplomacy belongs on the short list of budget priorities. This was the case President Clinton recently made in Missouri -- to the applause of the American Veterans of Foreign Wars. And it should be a starting point in negotiations on the final shape of the Fiscal Year 2000 budget.

I hope we will have your support in assuring that America has the resources it requires to lead in a way our citizens expect and our interests demand.

Members of the University of Maine community, we live in a world of astonishing and ever-accelerating change, where technological breakthroughs occur daily, trends may disappear in a week, and events of just a few years ago can seem like ancient history.

But some things have not changed.

The wonderful taste of a Maine lobster.

The beauty of a New England autumn.

The excellence of this University.

The legacy of Ed Muskie.

The integrity of Bill Cohen.

And the purpose of America.

Some decades ago, when Cold War tensions were at their highest, Walter Lippman wrote about the realities of his time in words that may serve as a warning to ours.

With all the danger and worry it causes, the Soviet challenge may yet prove a blessing. For if our influence were undisputed, we would, I feel sure, slowly deteriorate. Having lost our great energy and daring because everything was so comfortable, we would enter into the decline which has marked so many societies when they have come to think there is no great work to be done. For then the night has come and they doze off and they begin to die.

Our challenge is to prove Lippman wrong; to employ our energy, retain our daring, and understand that our responsibilities are similar in magnitude, if not so obviously in drama, as those fulfilled by our predecessors.

It is true we face no Hitler or Stalin. But it is as great a mission to create the conditions under which such evil does not again threaten us, as it would be to oppose such evil if and when it did.

The novelist Herman Melville wrote that we Americans "are the pioneers of the world; the advance guard set on through the wilderness of untried things, to make a path in the New world, that is ours."

The era of covered wagons and the blazing of trails through the wilderness is long past. But for America, there are no final frontiers. We are not and have never been a status quo country. We have always believed that the future can be made better than the past. We are doers.

And if we are to build for our children the future they deserve, we must be more than spectators, more even than actors. We must be the authors of the history of our age.

To that mission this morning, I pledge my own best efforts, and respectfully solicit yours.

Thank you very much.

(end transcript)