17 January 2001 Powell: "America Must Be Involved in the World" (Link to discussion of missile defense) Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell said January 17 that a "guiding principle" of President-elect George W. Bush's foreign policy "will be that America stands ready to help any country that wishes to join the democratic world," that "seeks peace and prosperity" and that strives to live by the rule of law. "In what President-elect Bush has called 'a distinctly American internationalism,' there is no inclination whatsoever to have our nation withdraw from the world into a fortress of protectionism or an island of isolation. As President-elect Bush has said, 'America must be involved in the world,'" Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at his confirmation hearing. Powell called the "remarkable continuity" in the U.S. world outlook over the years, no matter what political party was in power, "one of the great strengths of our system," and added "We propose no change in that regard." He made these points concerning the Bush team's views "of some of the key issues in world affairs": NATO "is the bedrock of our relationship with Europe. It is sacrosanct. Weaken NATO and you weaken Europe." "Our challenge with China is to do what we can that is constructive, that is helpful, and that is in our interests....Taiwan is part of China. How the PRC and Taiwan resolve the difference in interpretation of that view is up to them," so long as military force is not used. "We are open to a continued process of engagement" with North Korea "so long as it addresses political, economic, and security concerns, is reciprocal, and does not come at the expense of our alliance relationships." "I support the need for forces to provide presence" on the Korean Peninsula and in Europe "and to be able to deter and fight regional conflicts which might occur near-simultaneously." "I believe it is important that we look at missile defense within the context of our entire strategic framework," including offensive nuclear weapons, our command and control systems, our intelligence systems and arms control. "If we can put together" such a complete framework, "we will be that much better off in our relations with both friend and foe." The ABM Treaty in its current form "is no longer relevant to our new strategic framework. We hope to persuade the Russians of the need to move beyond it." "We are ready to work with all the parties" in the Middle East "to achieve a comprehensive solution" for lasting peace. "We will work with our allies to re-energize the sanctions regime" in Iraq. "We need to be vigilant, ready to respond to provocation, and utterly steadfast in our policy toward Saddam Hussein, and we need to be supportive of opposition efforts." The African Growth and Opportunity Act "is the right way to begin to bring Africa into the more prosperous world of free-flowing capital and open markets." "As a goal, President-elect Bush wants free trade agreements with all the countries of Latin America." "We support the actions by the Congress and the President to send aid to Columbia," which should be used to fight the illicit drug trade, halt the momentum of the guerrillas and bring about a sensible and peaceful resolution to the long-term conflict there. "We need to work harder and more consistently to assist India" in keeping the peace in the vast Indian Ocean area and its periphery, "while not neglecting our friends in Pakistan." "The Bush administration will ensure that there is always a place for NGOs in the developmental, humanitarian, and peace-keeping efforts we undertake." "I am pleased to see the recent agreement" on United Nations budget reform. "I also support our paying as promptly as possible the arrears that we have accumulated with the UN." Following is the prepared text of Powell's opening statement to the committee: Statement of Secretary of State-designate Colin L. Powell Prepared for the Confirmation Hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Scheduled for 10:30 AM January 17, 2001 Thank you, Senator Warner, and you Senator Allen, for those very kind and generous introductory remarks. I look forward to working with both of you in the days ahead. The great state of Virginia is well represented in the United States Senate. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am honored to have been nominated by President-elect George W. Bush to be America's 65th Secretary of State, and to be here seeking your approval and the approval of the full Senate of that nomination. I am pleased that you have asked my wife, Alma, to be here. This is a proud moment for us both and for our family. Mr. Chairman, these proceedings mark the 64th renewal of a long and honored tradition that began when the 26 members of the first US Senate met to consider the nomination before them, that of Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. When Jefferson took office in 1790, a cynical and tired Europe laughed in derision at the thought that "popular government" -- as it was called in that day -- might work in even one country, much less the world. And all of us can remember just two decades ago when noted experts in academic journals wrote of the weakness and possible demise of democratic institutions in the face of dictatorial power. We know that those articles were appearing at the very moment when Jefferson's ideas of liberty and self-government were about to prove another generation of cynics wrong. Ideas that were going to, as Jefferson prayed, "flow through time" and "spread their happy influence over the face of the earth," as people behind the iron curtain and around the world threw off the yoke of totalitarianism. Jefferson's ideas and Jefferson's prayers were ahead of the time in which he lived and ahead of the man himself. Let us pause during this week of celebration of the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and reflect on how Dr. King helped to answer Jefferson's prayers of freedom for Black Americans whose forebears were held to be property, slaves, in Jefferson's custody. I am before you today as Jefferson's admiring successor, thankful for all the sacrifices that were made by Dr. King and so many others to make this American dream possible. A dream that I hope will continue to inspire my fellow Americans and people around the world. There is still so much more to be done here at home and overseas. President-elect George W. Bush understands that dark shadows still linger over the edges of the American dream for many. He intends to remove those shadows. He will be a president for all Americans. And he will be a leader who will faithfully represent the ideas of freedom and justice to the world. And for those who believe that America's emphasis on human rights in the world may wane during the coming administration, I say simply, keep watching. President-elect Bush will always be mindful of the sanctity of the individual as opposed to the state, and the precious rights that keep that sanctity intact. From political prisoners to the rights of women, there will be no diminishment of concern or action. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am no stranger to this committee. I remember working late nights in 1987 with Senator Helms to finish the INF Treaty which resulted in the destruction of an entire class of nuclear weapons. I remember testifying at hearings chaired by Senator Biden on the CFE Treaty which reduced the conventional threat in Europe. We worked together then in a spirit of cooperation to benefit the nation. If confirmed, I promise you that I will follow that spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship in all my dealings with the committee and with the Congress. We will need to work well together because we have a great challenge before us. But it is not a challenge of survival. It is a challenge of leadership. For it is not a dark and dangerous ideological foe we confront, but the overwhelming power of millions of people who have tasted freedom. It is our own incredible success that we face. I have seen that success in the seven years since I stepped down from the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. More and more nations moving onto the path of democracy and the free enterprise system. Here at home a soaring economy, driven by the power of the information and technology revolutions. The rise of democracy and the power of the information revolution combine to leverage each other. Until recently, I was on the board of directors of one of the hundreds of companies in the front ranks of this information revolution. From that vantage point, I had a chance to see some of the wonderful developments that are transforming our world with breathtaking speed and dramatic depth. Over one hundred million people are connected by this company and its various services. They can instant-message, they can e-mail, they can trade photos, papers, ideas, dreams, likes and dislikes -- all without customs posts, visas, passports, tariffs, guard towers, or any other way for governments to interfere. With the speed of light, the concept of freedom can travel around the world. If such ideas move around now with the speed of light, they are also like the light -- darkness cannot withstand them. Eventually, they will flow into every dark place and illuminate that place for the betterment of humankind. Two of the most important of these ideas are democracy and capitalism. They are like twin lasers, working in tandem all across the globe to illuminate the last dark corners of totalitarianism and dictatorship. The ideological -isms have all died away -- fascism, Nazism, communism -- leaving only the dregs of abused and misused power lying in their wake. In this refuse, dictators remain. But these are relics of the past and the "isms" they practice can't destroy us, can't overthrow us, can't end our way of life. They can be dangerous and require our attention, but they can't hurtle the Atlantic in 30 minutes and end our civilization. Democracy and free markets work and the world knows it. There is no finer example of this than America and her allies, who together comprise the strongest economies in the world. There should be no question in any world leader's mind that the first and most essential ingredient for economic success is a free people -- and a government that derives its right to govern from the consent of such people. A guiding principle of President-elect Bush's foreign policy will be that America stands ready to help any country that wishes to join the democratic world, any country that puts the rule of law in place and begins to live by that rule, any country that seeks peace and prosperity and a place in the sun. In that light, there is no country on earth that is not touched by America for we have become the motive force for freedom and democracy. And there is no country in the world that does not touch us. We are a country of countries, with a citizen in our ranks from every land. We are attached by a thousand cords to the world at large -- to its teeming cities, to its remotest regions, to its oldest civilizations, to its newest cries for freedom. This means that we have an interest in every place on this earth, that we need to lead, to guide, to help in every country that has a desire to be free, open, and prosperous. So, Mr. Chairman, this is a time of great opportunity for us. We have the strength to take risks for peace. We must help the world that wants to be free. And we can take risks because we have an insurance policy in force -- the Armed Forces of the United States, the finest in the world. And they will remain the finest in the world, with the best people, the best equipment, and the best training. The Armed Forces are just one member of our national security team. There are many others. And if you confirm me, I will become the leader of one of the most vital members. It is the State Department and its talented and dedicated professionals who are in the forefront of our engagement with the world. While the world has been growing more complex and demanding, we have cut the number of people in the State Department, we have underfunded our facilities accounts, we have neglected our infrastructure. We need to do better. Some of you may have visited Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo where our GIs are stationed. It is a superb, first-class facility, put in almost overnight to make sure our troops were taken care of. But if you visited some of the dilapidated embassies and other State Department facilities in the region you would wonder whether the same government was taking care of them. We have exceptional people in the State Department, many of whom I've met personally over my years of public service or over the last few weeks of transition. And if we want them to do the people's work, we must give them the resources to do it. In that regard, I want to thank you for what you gave the Department for this fiscal year. But I will be coming back to you because I know that we do not have enough to accomplish the mission that is before us. As soon as I have put together the specific programs, and the dollar details to support those programs, I'll be back. Put it on your calendars: If you approve my appointment and the full Senate approves it, I'll be back. That's a promise. Now you expect to hear how the Bush team views some of the key issues in world affairs, so let me turn to that. In what President-elect Bush has called "a distinctly American internationalism", there is no inclination whatsoever to have our nation withdraw from the world into a fortress of protectionism or an island of isolation. As President-elect Bush has also said, "America must be involved in the world." And we must be involved according to our national interests and not in some haphazard way that seems more dictated by the crisis du jour than by serious, thoughtful foreign policy. That said, as you well know, there has been a remarkable continuity in our world outlook over the years, no matter what political party was in power or who occupied the White House. It is one of the great strengths of our system. From the early days of our young republic when Secretary of State John Quincy Adams protested that we would not be a cock-boat in the wake of the British man-of-war, to the days of the great trans-Atlantic Alliance that under our leadership has proven the strongest in world history, America has dealt with the world in an admirably consistent way. We propose no change in that regard. You will note much that is traditional and consistent in my presentation. There is one such tradition in foreign policy that we will adhere to closely -- we will always be very, very clear about things we believe in strongly. No ally, friend, or enemy will ever be unclear about where we stand on a matter that touches our heart and soul and our basic interests. For example, we believe strongly in NATO. It is the bedrock of our relationship with Europe. It is sacrosanct. Weaken NATO and you weaken Europe, which weakens America. The value of NATO can be seen by the fact that ten years after the Cold War, nations are still seeking to join the Alliance. The Alliance is as relevant for the future as it was in the past. It did not threaten Russia in the past and will not in the future. Historic change is occurring in Europe, as the recent summit in Nice indicated. Europeans are striving in their own way and in their own time for their own "more perfect union." This striving includes foreign policy and defense needs. We welcome a more integrated, robust, and a stronger Europe -- an all the more capable partner in the challenging times ahead. Our European allies are in the midst of important efforts to improve their defense capabilities. We will support any such effort as long as it strengthens NATO, not weakens it. What happens within that great Alliance and what happens to it, must comport with its continued strength, resilience, and effectiveness. We will oppose any move that does not. To our west, a similar bedrock exists. It is our strong relationships with our Asia-Pacific allies and friends, particularly Japan. Weaken those relationships and we weaken ourselves. All else in the Pacific and East Asia flows from those strong relationships. With these fundamentals in mind, as we look to the Pacific we come first to China. China is a giant -- a giant trying to find its way in the world, with a communist leadership still, yet with distinctly Chinese textures that belie any real categorization other than capitalism now weaves a strong strain throughout. Our challenge with China is to do what we can that is constructive, that is helpful, and that is in our interests. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and our other allies and friends in the region have a stake in this process of nurturing a constructive relationship -- and we will want to work with them in responding to a dynamic China. With full membership in the World Trade Organization, with increasingly responsible behavior in the region and in the world, and most vitally with increased freedom for the Chinese people, China may yet fulfill the promise that Sun Yat-sen began almost a hundred years ago. But in the meantime, we will treat China as she merits. A strategic partner China is not. But neither is China our inevitable and implacable foe. China is a competitor and a potential regional rival, but also a trading partner willing to cooperate in the areas -- such as Korea -- where our strategic interests overlap. China is all of these things; but China is not an enemy and our challenge is to keep it that way. The US has long acknowledged the view that there is only one China. In that respect, Taiwan is part of China. How the PRC and Taiwan resolve the differences in interpretation of that view is up to them -- so long as military force is not one of the methods used. In the meantime, we will stand by Taiwan and we will provide for its defense needs in accordance with our Taiwan Relations Act, which is the foundation for our commitment to that hardworking and prosperous democracy. Let all who doubt, from whatever perspective, be assured of one solid truth: We expect and demand a peaceful settlement, one acceptable to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. This is one of the fundamentals that we feel strongly about and that all should be absolutely clear about. Likewise, when we look out across the Atlantic, we find another giant trying to find its future. Our challenge in this direction is to help the Russian people come to grips with their future -- solidifying their democracy, restructuring their economy to support that democracy, joining the wider world in every respect, and moving positively and swiftly toward lower levels of nuclear weapons, greater stability on their periphery, and a firmer, more permanent peace for themselves and for the people of the region. Our relations with Russia must not be dictated by any fear on our part. If we believe that the enlargement of NATO should continue, for example -- and we do -- we should not fear that Russia will object. Instead we should deal with Russia's objections and find a way to address them. NATO is not aimed at Russia; NATO is aimed at the peace of Europe. And Russia is European too, after all. And Russia is also Asian and, as we might expect of a country of eleven time zones and with enough strategic depth and courage to stop both Napoleon and Hitler, Russian influence goes both ways, east and west. So Russia is a country that can gain enormous benefits from its relationship with us and with the West in general. But that relationship can only be a strong and successful one if Russia does what it needs to do. And what it needs to do, as President-elect Bush has said, is to get on with reform -- in particular by firmly establishing the rule of law, rooting out corruption, stopping proliferation of missile technology and nuclear materials, ending sales of destabilizing conventional weapons to nations such as Iran and, in general, living up to the obligations it has incurred as the newest democracy with world power credentials. One such obligation can be found in Chechnya, where the Russians have much to accomplish. Above all, they must achieve apolitical settlement, the only way to end the conflict and bring peace to the area. At the same time, they must observe internationally recognized norms, such as those of the Geneva Conventions, they must meet their commitments to the UN and to the OSCE, and they must allow humanitarian assistance organizations to have access to civilians. And we are prepared to do our utmost to help Russia in all its efforts to become a responsible member of the world community -- as, for example, we have in the OSCE with respect to Chechnya. In the end, the world may see the enigma inside the riddle wrapped up in the mystery that is Russia, deciphered, solved, and unwrapped. But the magician who does that can't be us, or anyone else in the world. It can only be the Russian people. Looking back to the Pacific, we come to our bilateral relationship with the Republic of Korea, a land seeking a historic reconciliation, one that we support and will help facilitate. But so long as the dictator in the north continues to field far more conventional military force than any conceivable sense of self defense would warrant, and develops missiles and unconventional weapons, we and our allies in the Pacific will remain vigilant. In conjunction with Secretary-designate Rumsfeld, we will review thoroughly our relationship with the North Koreans, measuring our response by the only criterion that is meaningful -- continued peace and prosperity in the South and in the region. We believe that the reduction of tensions between the North and South is one of the keys to greater peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. The ongoing North-South dialogue is certainly a positive step in this regard. Secretary Albright has made me aware of the status of discussions with the North Koreans. So we are mindful of all the work that has been done and will use it as we review our overall policy on the Peninsula. In the meantime, we will abide by our commitments under the Agreed Framework provided that North Korea does the same. We are open to a continued process of engagement with the North so long as it addresses political, economic, and security concerns, is reciprocal, and does not come at the expense of our alliance relationships. And in our review of the situation on the Peninsula, the Bush administration will be looking closely at our defense posture. As you know, once confirmed, Secretary Rumsfeld will be conducting the comprehensive review of our military called for by the President-elect. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld shares my view that our defense posture must match our east-west obligations. We must have sufficient military might for the Atlantic, mainly in NATO, and for the Pacific, largely in Korea and Japan. And our defense capabilities must also provide for deterrence and force projection in the Persian Gulf. Our 37,000 GIs on the Korean Peninsula, along with their well-trained and well-motivated Korean counterparts, are a clear signal of our resolve and interest in the Pacific, as are our Japan-based soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Our troops in Europe, and our strong allied forces, afford the same clear and definite interest in that direction. As Secretary-designate Rumsfeld studies our defense needs in this new century, I know this important bi-directional requirement will be uppermost in his considerations. I support the need for forces to provide presence in these regions and to be able to deter and fight regional conflicts which might occur near-simultaneously. Of course, the United States can't do it all alone -- we need our allies and friends to help us with the security challenges of the new century. Looking to the South Pacific, we know that Australia, our firm ally in Asia and the Pacific, has a keen interest in what is happening in the region, particularly in Indonesia. So we will coordinate our policies and our actions in this important area with our long-time Australian friends. Indonesia, as you well know, is a state that stretches from east to west as far as New York is from San Francisco. And this nation is undergoing enormous change. Our relations with this hugely important country need careful attention. President Wahid is attempting to undo years of neglect while at the same time hold together a fractious population -- a population much affected by that flow of ideas I mentioned earlier. Turning again to the Atlantic, President-elect Bush has promised to look closely at our commitments in the Balkans, with the hope of reducing our troop levels there over time and in consultation with our allies. This will be part of a much more comprehensive review of all of our commitments, not simply those in Bosnia and Kosovo. We must always be mindful of the uniqueness of America's armed forces. We possess the only military in the world that can go anywhere, any time, support ourselves over the long haul, and do it all in an overwhelming and decisive manner if need be. Tying down such forces is often imprudent. We need to consider these points whenever we feel the need to use our armed forces for peace operations that promise long or undetermined duration. We must consider also that when we deploy our military, whether for peace operations or potential conflict, they are vulnerable to more than simply conventional weapons. While such weapons constitute the primary threat to our men and women in uniform, our GIs are also vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction delivered by missiles, as are the militaries and civilian populations of our allies and our friends. Theater Missile Defense is therefore an important requirement for our forces. Working with Secretary-designate Rumsfeld, we will review where our technology is today for TMD and also for National Missile Defense. As you are aware, President-elect Bush has made it quite clear that he is committed to deploying an effective missile defense using the best technology at the earliest possible date. We will be developing a plan for the way ahead - including looking at the diplomatic ramifications. I believe it is important that we look at missile defense within the context of our entire strategic framework. This framework includes offensive nuclear weapons, our command and control systems, our intelligence systems, arms control including our non-proliferation efforts, and missile defense. No one thinking soundly, logically, would construct a strategic framework with offense only. Not the New York Giants and not America. If we can put together a complete framework, one that includes all the strategic dimensions, including defense, we will be that much better off in our relations with both friend and foe. I still remember the original purpose of such a defense -- that is to start diminishing the value of offensive weapons. That's important if we are serious - and we are in our efforts to make the world a safer place with fewer nuclear weapons and with the ones that remain having less currency. There is no question that today we still need the offensive component of our strategic architecture because, in my mind, the greatest deterrent right now is the clear fact that we have the capability to destroy any tyrant who could fire a missile at us. This is another area where studied ambiguity is useless. With respect to our offensive component we still need a president who can stand on a DMZ, gaze into enemy territory, and let it be known without a second's hesitation that should a missile come from that territory there is no question as to what will happen next. While we design this complete strategic framework and decide these important issues on missile defense, there will be time to consult with our allies and friends to solicit their views and to ensure their understanding of what we are doing and, in some cases, their participation. We will also discuss this issue with the Russians and the Chinese, as we continue to operate on the arms control front as well. In that context, the ABM Treaty in its current form is no longer relevant to our new strategic framework. We hope to persuade the Russians of the need to move beyond it. Important in this regard also is to reduce further the number of excess nuclear weapons in the offensive part of the framework. There are still too many in ours and in Russia's stockpiles. And in Russia there are still thousands of nuclear weapons that may not be secure. This challenge was addressed in 1991 by you, Senator Lugar, and by your fellow Senator then, Senator Nunn of Georgia. Under the resulting program, security at many Russian nuclear facilities has been improved and warheads have been destroyed. But a great deal of Russian nuclear material cannot be accounted for. We need an accurate inventory of all this material. And we need to increase and reinforce our efforts to dismantle as many of Russia's weapons as possible, as quickly as possible. I am confident that we can continue to count on strong congressional support for these efforts, as has been the case in the past. We also need to review our approach to curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which will have a high priority in the Bush administration. In that regard, the President-elect does not plan to ask the Senate to take up again for ratification the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. At the same time, he has said that we will not resume testing as there is no need to do so for the foreseeable future. I have reviewed the report by President Clinton's special advisor and my colleague General Shalikashvili, and we will be reviewing the recommendations he makes, especially those "relating to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Our primary emphasis in our efforts to curb proliferation, however, will remain twofold: to constrict the supply of nuclear materials and the means to deliver them and to discourage other countries from believing any gains will accrue from possession of such weapons. These two fundamentals will be at the heart of our non-proliferation policy. Mr. Chairman, let me now turn to the Middle East where, as you know, we have a major challenge to the peace process. I applaud the commitment of our past presidents in their tireless efforts to help find a resolution to this half- century-old conflict with its roots in antiquity. President-elect Bush shares this goal. We seek a lasting peace based on unshakable support for the security of Israel, the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, our friendships in the Arab world, and a hard-headed recognition that the parties themselves must make the peace. we deplore the increased violence in the area and encourage the parties to do all possible to bring it to an end. You can't successfully pursue peace in the midst of such violence. We also pledge to focus our own efforts on the region as a whole and not just on the peace process itself. We are ready to work with all the parties in the region to achieve a comprehensive solution. Peace for Israel means peace with all her neighbors, Syria included, where we need to build on the opportunity created by Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon. And as we look at the entire region, Mr. Chairman, there is no more tragic case than Iraq, a failed state with a failed leader. It is sad to consider what it could be, what it should be, if only it used its vast resources and its talented people for constructive purposes. But instead of seeking peace and prosperity for its people, a weakened Iraq utters threats and pursues horrible weapons to terrorize its neighbors. We have seen what Iraq did to Teheran; we have seen what it did to Kuwait City, especially to the children of that city. We must not forget how Iraq treated those innocent children. We saw some of the effects on our television screens. We saw the aftermath when the Marines moved into the city after Desert Storm. The President-elect has made it clear that we will work with our allies to re-energize the sanctions regime. Critics will say that tightened sanctions mean more harm to the people of Iraq, especially the children. No one cares for children more than I do. And I understand that a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon in the hands of Saddam Hussein threatens the children of not only Iraq but the entire region far more than tightened sanctions whose ultimate goal it is to prevent such a weapon. The problem in Iraq is not with tightened sanctions. From its inception, the sanctions regime has included means by which Iraq could import whatever food and humanitarian assistance it required. The problem, Mr. Chairman, lies with a leader that continues to deny his people the basic necessities of life in a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion both inside Iraq and in the wider world. We need to be vigilant, ready to respond to provocations, and utterly steadfast in our policy toward Saddam Hussein, and we need to be supportive of opposition efforts. The burden should be on Iraq to prove to the region, to the UN, and to its neighbors, and to its neighbors, children that they are no longer threatened, that Iraq is ready to live in the world and not apart from it. Until Iraq makes that decision and lives by it, we will remain resolute. America has no quarrel with the people of Iraq. We look forward to the day when that country rejoins the family of nations and resumes normal diplomatic and commercial relations with us and with the rest of the world. On the other side of the Persian Gulf, Iran is a different case -- an important country undergoing profound change from within. We have important differences on matters of policy. But these differences need not preclude greater interaction, whether in more normal commerce or increased dialogue. our national security team will be reviewing such possibilities. Mr. Chairman, as we continue to look at our responsibilities across the Atlantic, we need to maintain our outreach to Africa -- and with more substance. In March of 1999 when I was in Nigeria to help President Carter supervise the national elections, I was impressed with the newly-elected president's courage and with his commitment to bringing democracy to his troubled country a country with enormous potential. President Obasanjo is now confronting the pressures of massive indebtedness, ethnic division, and the twin legacies of colonialism and military misrule. He will need help to consolidate his gains help that comes most vitally in the form of debt relief, investment and trade, and full support for the democracy he is trying to create. One of the most important actions the Congress undertook this past year was the passage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Free trade is important the world over, but different regions require different formulas for fostering free trade. This Act is the right way to begin to bring Africa into the more prosperous world of free-flowing capital and open markets. Open trade is an enormous force, as you know Mr. Chairman. It powers more than just economic reform and growth; it creates better relations between nations. We prefer that the WTO lead the way in such matters but we are interested also in initiatives that expand trade at the bilateral and regional levels. Valuable in themselves, such initiatives also create way stations on the road to a new global accord. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is such a stepping stone. With powerful economies such as South Africa's, and eventually Nigeria's and other transforming African states, we can begin to change the lives of Africa's poorest peoples. We know also that Africans must do more for themselves. In Nigeria, this means full speed ahead with privatization and opening further the Nigerian economy. In Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, the Congo, and elsewhere, this means stopping the killing, taking the weapons out of the hands of children, ending corruption, seeking compromises, and beginning to work in peace and dialogue rather than war and killing. It means giving the profits from oil and diamonds and other precious resources to schools and hospitals and decent roads instead of to bombs, bullets, and feuding warlords. Returning to our own side of the Atlantic, here in the Western Hemisphere, there are 500 million people with whom we share some borders, most economic values and, with the exception of the relic in Cuba, a pervasive belief that people who are free and governed democratically are people who will keep the peace and create and sustain a prosperity that will benefit us all. President-elect Bush is especially alert to this region. As a governor, he dealt frequently with Mexico, a neighbor whose recent elections proved once again the sweeping power of the changes occurring in our world -- as you recently recognized, Mr. Chairman, along with several other committee members, in your sponsorship of Senate Resolution 335 congratulating the people of Mexico. We must never neglect our own neighborhood. We must help solidify democracy's hold, open markets even further, and encourage at every opportunity the kind of economic policies that support and bolster the greater freedom of the region's peoples. In this regard, NAFTA was a great step forward and a bilateral Free Trade Agreement with Chile will continue that progress. As a goal, President-elect Bush wants free trade agreements with all the countries of Latin America. We are well aware that the one-size-fits-all approach is not always the answer, but the ultimate goal is free trade from the Yukon to Cape Horn. We have come a long way from the days of gangsters in Panama, communists in Nicaragua, and insurrections in El Salvador and Guatemala. We must stay on that road to progress. Making prosperous economies based on solid democracies is the best way to do that. And also helping where we can with humanitarian assistance, as is happening right now with Army medical troops and engineers from our units in Honduras in response to the tragic earthquake in El Salvador. With respect to bolstering democracy, we are especially interested in Plan Colombia. As you may be aware, President-elect Bush has met with President Pastrana. Their visit was a good one and the president-elect came away with a solid impression of his dedication and earnestness on two key issues: fighting the scourge of illicit drugs and ending the insurgency that threatens Colombia's democracy. We support the actions by the Congress and President to send aid to Colombia. We believe that this money, some 1.3 billion dollars from America, should be used to help the Colombian government to protect its people, fight the illicit drug trade, halt the momentum of the guerrillas, and ultimately to bring about a sensible and peaceful resolution to the conflict that has ravaged Colombia for so long now. There is another country, Mr. Chairman, that I want to mention before I leave this regional perspective, a country that should grow more and more focused in the lens of our foreign policy. That country is India. we must deal more wisely with the world's largest democracy. Soon to be the most populous country in the world, India has the potential to help keep the peace in the vast Indian Ocean area and its periphery. We need to work harder and more consistently to assist India in this endeavor, while not neglecting our friends in Pakistan. As you know, this is a delicate process in the midst of what by any accurate account would be labeled an arms race between these two countries. Recently, however, there have been encouraging signs, including India's extended moratorium on operations in Kashmir and Pakistan's restraint along the Line of Control. Mr. Chairman, as I talk about these regions of the world I must mention the increasingly important and dramatically larger role played today by non-governmental organizations. As all of you are aware, NGOs have been around a long time. And over that time they have done much good work. I think about World Vision's programs in Africa and I remember some of my adopted children from my time at America's Promise, little 6th, 7th, and 8th graders from the District of Columbia, who actually fasted for 30 hours at a church near my home - St. Thomas' Episcopal Church in McLean, Virginia. Under careful supervision, they refrained from eating or drinking anything substantial while they sat through classes on the projects that World Vision was managing in several African countries. During the course of the day and late into the night, these children were profoundly moved by what they saw and heard. So moved, in fact, that they went door-to-door the next morning and collected hundreds of dollars for World Vision's programs in Africa. These youngsters recognized intuitively how important World Vision's work was to the young children and families of these African countries. We recognize that importance too. Today, NGOs are in every region, laboring away at their many tasks. As President-elect Bush has remarked about the vital nature of faith-based and voluntary private and non-profit institutions and their role in America, so we must realize how necessary is the work of the NGOs to our wider purposes in the world. The Bush administration will ensure that there is always a place for NGOs in the developmental, humanitarian, and peace-keeping efforts we undertake. We need their professionalism, their focused in-country knowledge and expertise, and their dedication to good works. Senator Helms recognized such efforts just last week. And I salute his willingness to put more dollars in the foreign aid budget if we can make their dispensing more effective, more efficient, and closer to the need. And I will be looking to him and to other of the members to help me in the redesign, if need be, of the organizational structure for doing that. Let me say here that I know that many members of the committee are critical of the organization and management of the State Department. I will make this a top priority of my stewardship. We can't get the job ahead of us done unless the State Department operates in the most efficient manner possible. That is my responsibility. I am the leader and chief manager of the Department, as well as the President's principal foreign policy advisor. I will not shirk that responsibility. Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, one of President-elect Bush's principal foreign policy goals is that America go about its business in the world with the statesman-like demeanor required of the world's greatest democracy. We cannot do this well if we refuse to recognize one of the best tools for international diplomacy that American leaders of the past, along with other like-minded world leaders, saw fit to create, develop, and nurture. I mean the United Nations. In this regard, I am pleased to see the recent agreement whereby we will now pay our dues in accordance with a dues structure more in line with fairness, equity, and the idea that all should pull their weight in financing this important institution. I agree with the assessment of Senator Helms that this agreement is "a real leap forward." I also support our paying as promptly as possible the arrears that we have accumulated with the UN -- so that this leap can be as far forward as we can jump. I know that you, Senator Helms, and you, Senator Biden, as well as other members of this committee had much to do with bringing about this agreement. I applaud your tireless efforts and the outcome they produced. I believe we will find great value in the United Nations in the future, as we have in the past. For while the future is full of promise, it also presents new and different challenges. The challenge of HIV/AIDS is one of these, as is the challenge of protecting and safeguarding the earth itself, the only livable environment we have. International organized crime -- including trafficking in narcotics - and international terrorism are two more such examples of these challenges that recognize no borders, no sovereignties. Our encouragement and support of international religious freedom is another issue that has no frontier. These challenges affect our lives and demand our attention. We must recognize, for example, that global infectious diseases such as AIDS have the potential to devastate economies, governments, peoples, and regions. Indeed, in much of sub-Saharan Africa that is too rapidly becoming the situation. In the next ten years, HIV/AIDS may kill one-quarter of Africa's population and reduce national economies by one-third -- severely straining state structures many of which are already faltering. The increasing presence of this terrible disease in India and Russia bodes more devastation in the future. No longer is such devastation simply a cause for our sympathy, our charity, our reaching out to care for fellow humans -- although these altruistic motivations are still vital to us as humans. Increasingly meeting such challenges successfully, appeals to even more basic instincts -- caring for our own interests, paying attention to our own hope for survival on this earth. We must guard our citizens and our society against crime and terrorism as well. Nothing defeats our honest purposes in a more insidious way than organized crime, and international terrorism -- the scourge of cowards with bombs and guns - must not be allowed to deter us from our steady course toward a freer and more prosperous world. Dealing with these non-traditional challenges will be as important as dealing with the more traditional ones. And I believe that in the future a revamped and reinvigorated United Nations will be a principal partner in meeting these new challenges. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the times are exciting. You can almost feel the change in the air. You can almost sense the transformation taking place. There are more people living in this world today than ever imagined possible by our forefathers -- and they are freer than ever before. The resulting mosaic is beautiful, diverse, and full of promise. And our country is under a heavy obligation. Our preeminence in the two unstoppable world forces of democracy and capitalism, coupled with our unparalleled military power and our strong passion for peace and prosperity for ourselves and our friends and allies, places us under this heavy obligation. It is an obligation we must fulfill. We must help move our transforming world toward more and more freedom, toward increasing prosperity, toward a wider, peace -- while at the same time safeguarding and enhancing our own. What we do with our position of power over the next decades will mark this earth irrevocably for good or bad. It will do so both physically and spiritually, for our power extends over everything from economics to the environment, from music to the cinema, from literature to the sciences, from genetic adaptation to human frailty and disease. What a time this is for-dedicated public service! Were our founders alive today, they would rejoice at our prospects. Jefferson would be astonished at the incredible increase in our population -- but mostly because we are largely in cities. Hamilton would also be astonished at our size - but would relish the revenue-gathering possibilities. And if Washington were here, well, he would be content. The old warrior-statesman understood the potential America possessed as well as any man alive at the time. His only significant concern, I believe, would have been what was his primary concern when he was president over 200 years ago. Washington called it "faction." To argue that politics stopped at the water's edge., or that there was no partisanship or special interests in foreign policy in his day, as some modern pundits do, would have made him roar with laughter, followed perhaps by a smoldering rage -- as he further considered that assessment in light of his personal experience as president. The Jeffersonian preference for the French as opposed to the Hamiltonian preference for the British, all by themselves, offered to Washington's eight years in the presidency as much "faction" in foreign policy as any president could want -- or learn to hate. It would be disrespectful of our history, therefore, for me to sit here and ask you, and by implication all of your fellow Senators, to grant the President-elect and his national security team a bipartisan approach to foreign policy. More importantly, it would be disrespectful of our method, our proven political process whose main way of revealing truth to power is the exquisite mechanism of checks and balances built into its very fabric, its very essence. What I will ask for, then, is not bipartisanship in the conduct of America's foreign policy but dispassion and grace characteristics so descriptive of our first president. Let us discuss our differences without the anger and bitterness that has sometimes characterized discussions in the past -- and let us with grace and dignity agree to disagree, if that be the case. Above all, let us always remember the profound wisdom of our founders -- that in our grace and our dispassion and our reasonable discourse, no matter how much we may occasionally disagree, lies the surest foundation for our well representing the American people in the conduct of their foreign policy. If we do these things, I believe we can fulfill our enormous obligation to America and to the world we lead. I believe we can seize the historic opportunity that lies before us. As America's official advocate the world over, the Department of State recognizes this opportunity in all of its dimensions. "As an important member of the Bush team, we will play our considerable part in fulfilling the obligations of leadership. We will help President-elect Bush and all of you make America the leader she ought to be, must be, will be. Thank you, and I welcome your questions and comments. (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) Return to the Washington File