*EPF216 10/01/2002
Text: U.S. Power Must Serve to Enhance Liberty, Hagel Says
(Nebraska senator addresses Eisenhower Institute September 30) (3450)

"America����s role in the world comes not only from the extent of her power, but from the power of her principles," Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska) told members of the Eisenhower Institute September 30 in Washington, D.C.

Speaking on the topic "American Purpose and Power," Hagel said today����s international situation "will test America����s power and principles." Its response "will lay the foundation for its relationships in the world" for the next 50 years, he said.

The senator offered the view that the decade of the 1990s was a period without an "organizing principle" in international affairs. But the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last year have given notice that a new era in foreign affairs has arisen, he said.

"Global terrorism has brought us face-to-face with a land America and the West have never really understood, nor tried to," Hagel said. "In the Middle East, the challenges of a post-colonial era, where the struggles of self-determination and national identity clash with the seemingly arbitrary borders drawn by Imperial Britain 80 years ago, continue to complicate our relationships with our friends as well as our adversaries."

Turning to U.S. policy toward Iraq, Hagel said that President Bush "correctly made Iraq����s defiance of resolutions a test of the determination and relevance of the United Nations.

"The diplomatic process is not easy ����[but it] is essential for creating the international political environment that will be required for any action we take in Iraq, especially how we sustain a democratic transition in a post-Saddam Iraq. Diplomacy is not about checking a box; it����s about assuring success. Hard work, creative effort, disciplined focus and multilateral cooperation will be required; there is no shortcut for getting it right."

Hagel argued that "[r]egime change in Iraq should not be considered as either a military ����cake walk���� or nation-building on the cheap. We must plan for and think through the ����day after���� scenarios, the costs and commitment to rebuilding Iraq����s political culture and economy. Iraq is rich in human and natural resources. But a democratic transition will require strong U.S. political, economic, and military presence and engagement for the months and years after Saddam����s removal," he said.

The senator told his audience that regime change in Iraq "must be part of a comprehensive strategy for peace and the management of change in the Middle East." He proposed a U.S. policy entailing "more intensive, direct, and multilateral engagement" in six areas:

-- A solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict that includes recognition of Israel by Arab states, the end of terrorism in Israel and recognition of a Palestinian state;

-- Assuring Jordan����s "security, stability and survival";

-- Consideration of a multilateral regional security structure for Iraq and the Persian Gulf;

-- Intensified U.S. efforts for Afghan transition to stability and democracy;

-- Confidence-building measures to de-escalate the India-Pakistan border conflict; and

-- Strengthening the "alliances and alignments" needed for prosecuting the global war on terrorism.

The Eisenhower Institute is a non-profit organization begun in 1983 "to advance Dwight D. Eisenhower����s intellectual and leadership legacies in foreign and domestic policy through: a rigorous pursuit of facts; the encouragement of reasoned and respectful debate; and the quest for outcomes that serve the long-term interests of the American people while promoting justice and international peace," according to its Internet Web site (www.eisenhowerinstitute.org).

The text of Senator Hagel����s remarks, as prepared for delivery, follows:

(begin text)

REMARKS BY SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL
THE EISENHOWER INSTITUTE
"AMERICAN POWER AND PURPOSE"

THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
WASHINGTON, DC
SEPTEMBER 30, 2002

I would like to thank my friend and colleague Susan Eisenhower and the Eisenhower Institute for inviting me to speak to you today. The Eisenhower Institute, whose mission is to advance President Dwight D. Eisenhower's legacy of intellectual and public leadership, does all of us a great service through its programs and scholarship on the public policy challenges facing our country today.

President Eisenhower understood the need for an American purpose in world affairs that assured our security while offering all peoples and nations of the world hope for a better tomorrow. In his farewell address as President on January 17, 1961, he reminded Americans that: "Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad."

As President Eisenhower knew well, history allows no quarter for those blessed with the burdens of leadership. History also judges harshly those who unwisely, arrogantly, and dangerously squander great opportunities for mankind. America's role in the world comes not only from the extent of her power, but from the power of her principles. Periods of transition in world politics are usually accompanied by instability. The world faces such a challenge today. It will test America's power and principles. America's response will lay the foundation for its relationships in the world for the first half of the 21st Century.

The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and laid bare the pretense of Communism as a path to neither peace nor progress. While American military power carried the day, America's commitment to peace, democracy and free markets, as the political scientist Michael Mandelbaum has pointed out in an important new book, were the definitive weapons in America's Cold War arsenal. The victory had as much to do with the power of American principles as it did with the tallies of warheads or men in arms. Communist totalitarianism proved no match for American purpose and resolve. The great American adventure in free government, in Eisenhower's words, had no contenders.

The decade of the 1990's now appears as an interlude between two historic epochs in world affairs. Americans may have felt that our country deserved a reprieve from the demands of global confrontation and leadership. The generation which grew up during the Cold War had known the real-life fear of nuclear annihilation, that the end of Western civilization as we knew it could come about in minutes, the result of either war or miscalculation. That threat receded from the lives and consciousness of the American people. It was a relief, and few cared to look back.

There appeared no "organizing principle" in foreign affairs in what came to be called the post-Cold War era, and it seemed that wasn't such a bad thing. Our steadfast commitment to free trade and open economies fulfilled the promise of American-led prosperity. Conflicts in distant lands were "managed," with no threats reaching our shores. American supremacy in communications and information technologies guaranteed that our leadership in the New Economy would be assured for generations.

The conflict over Europe's borders, the central battleground for the Cold War, and many wars over the centuries, is no more. The soon-to-be 26 nation NATO alliance has assured this. In Asia, we are also seeing possibilities for progress and change. Our Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific will soon be in North Korea, following the historic visit of the Japanese Prime Minister earlier this month. These visits further develop new opportunities to open up North Korea to change and reform and reduce tension on the Korean peninsula, where nuclear weapons and 37,000 American troops reside.

In the wake of the attack on our nation on September 11, we know that we have entered a new era in foreign policy. The United States faces an international system where the threats do not come from competing nations, empires or alliances that can match our power or prestige, but from global terrorist networks and the outlaw regimes that provide them safe haven and support. That terrorists and their sponsors may acquire and use the most dangerous weapons the world has known magnifies the urgency and difficulty of our task. This war has many fronts, and requires many means -- diplomatic, law enforcement, intelligence, economic, humanitarian, and military -- for us to achieve victory. It is not a war as we have come to understand the term. It is redefining our conceptions of personal and national security. It requires creative and complex global coalitions -- coalitions of common interests, where intelligence gathering and sharing is as important as bombs. America alone cannot defeat this scourge of mankind. We will require partners.

The terrorist challenge to American security leads us to the Arab and Islamic worlds, lands deeply rich in culture, religion and resources, and, unfortunately, also in conflict, tragedy, and an absence of democratic traditions and institutions. U.S. engagement in the Middle East is of course nothing new, but that region has moved from periphery to center in our global strategy. Global terrorism has brought us face-to-face with a land America and the West have never really understood, nor tried to. In the Middle East, the challenges of a post-colonial era, where struggles of self-determination and national identity clash with the seemingly arbitrary borders drawn by Imperial Britain 80 years ago, continue to complicate our relationships with our friends as well as our adversaries. The great conflicts of this region over the last 50 years -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel's wars with her Arab neighbors, Lebanon's civil war, Iraq's military aggressions against Kuwait and Iran -- include reconciling borders and identities. We need to be students of the region's past, to ensure our actions will improve the region's future.

As America faces the historic challenge of international terrorism, we have embarked upon another course in the Middle East. President Bush has made disarmament, and by extension regime change, in Iraq a top priority for the United States. While the world shares our interest in the disarmament of Iraq, and while President Bush has rightly put this case before the United Nations, most nations are uneasy about making war on Saddam. Many Americans also have questions about the urgency of the threat and the risks that we face from Iraq. Not the threat itself, but the urgency of that threat.

We know that Saddam continues to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction. We can assume that his intentions are not benign, and that his own Kurdish population, as well as Israel, Kuwait, Iran, and the United States, among others, may be in his sights.

President Bush correctly made Iraq's defiance of U.N. resolutions a test of the determination and relevance of the United Nations.

The diplomatic process is not easy, and we face the competing interests and demands of Russia, France, China, and others, whose interests in Iraq may not always be the same as ours. Diplomacy is essential for creating the international political environment that will be required for any action we take in Iraq, especially how we sustain a democratic transition in a post-Saddam Iraq. Diplomacy is not about checking a box; it's about assuring success. Hard work, creative effort, disciplined focus and multilateral cooperation will be required; there is no shortcut for getting it right.

There can be little doubt that an Iraq without Saddam Hussein will be a better Iraq. The Iraqi people have lived through enough misery at the hands of this tyrant, and the region will not know peace and progress while Saddam reigns. But it is a mistake to believe that once Saddam is gone, a new peace and prosperity will necessarily reign in the Middle East or that with Saddam out of power, the dangerous Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be closer to resolution. We should not be deceived that regime change in Iraq will be an easy task, that the costs and risks are likely small, that we merely thump the bad guys on the chest, they fall and go away, and the path to peace, prosperity and disarmament is clear.

Does the road to peace in the Middle East go through Baghdad, as some have claimed? Maybe so. It will help to have Saddam gone. But the problems in the Middle East and Central and South Asia are far larger and more complex than just the Saddam Hussein equation.

Regime change in Iraq should not be considered as either a military "cake walk" or nation-building on the cheap. We must plan for and think through the "day after" scenarios, the costs and commitment to rebuilding Iraq's political culture and economy. Iraq is rich in human and natural resources. But a democratic transition will require strong U.S. political, economic, and military presence and engagement for the months and years after Saddam's removal.

We also cannot consider Iraq in a vacuum. Regime change in Iraq must be part of a comprehensive strategy for peace and the management of change in the Middle East. The risks may be high, but so are the opportunities. Our policies will require more intensive, direct and multilateral engagement in the following areas, which are related to our interests in Iraq:

1. To support a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that assures the recognition of Israel by the Arab world, ends terrorism in Israel and recognizes a Palestinian state.

2. To assure Jordan's security, stability, and survival. Of its population of just over 5 million, more than half are Palestinian, and 350,000 Iraqis live within Jordan's borders.

3. To consider a multilateral regional security structure for Iraq and the Persian Gulf, involving the U.N. Security Council permanent members and Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, that will address outstanding security and other matters, modeled upon the "6 plus 2" U.N. model for Afghanistan.

4. To intensify our efforts to support the transition to stability and democracy in Afghanistan, for this is our first test in the war on terrorism and we cannot fail.

5. To develop confidence-building measures to de-escalate the conflict between India and Pakistan, eyeball to eyeball with nuclear weapons, in a conflict that is closer to war than we've seen in a long time.

6. To continue to strengthen the alliances and alignments necessary to prosecute the long-term war on terrorism.

This agenda is not the product of ambition, but of necessity. What we begin in Iraq will not end in Iraq. Our deepening involvement in the Middle East will further ensure our nation's security and help define our role in a 21stcentury world. America should approach this path with a healthy wariness and prudence and an appreciation of the complexities of the cultures and conflicts that we must engage, both for the present and the future. We must also consider the lives that will be changed and lost through this process.

In preparing for a deepening involvement in the Middle East, and a likely war in Iraq, we must not lose sight of the need for a positive constructive message to complement our security interests in the region. We must be careful with our rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive our intentions.

America's challenge in this new century will be to strengthen its relationships around the world, while leading the world in our war on terrorism. For it is the success of the first challenge that will determine the success of the second. President Eisenhower understood that America's future was tied to multilateral institutions -- the United Nations, NATO, and others -- to strengthen and reinforce the free world's common interests in support of democracy. He knew that it was not a choice between sovereignty and multilateralism. Both were required and both needed to be strong. As America reviews, restructures, and restates its diplomatic and military doctrine to reflect the new realities of the international system, we must pay close attention to what has kept relative order and peace in the world for more than 50 years. The first half of the 20thcentury witnessed two great world wars, millions of people slaughtered, two genocides, and the greatest depression in history. The second half of the 20thcentury saw no world wars, no global depression, movements toward democratic institutions and more open economies, the implosion of the Soviet Union, more personal freedoms, and hope in the world for the prospect of continuing this human progress. Yes, there were also wars, poverty, genocide, great injustices, human tragedies and despair. But American leadership and multi-lateral institutions provided the foundations for progress, development, and peaceful change in the last half of the 20th Century. The world recognized a common interest in collective security, development, and free trade. Eisenhower and other great leaders of their time knew that the future of the world depended upon moving nations closer together into these coalitions of common interests, not further apart. Emphasizing a doctrine of preemption or prevention, which all sovereign nations already possess, risks undermining the international consensus on the necessity of these institutions and the progress we have made.

We want the world today to understand, as President Eisenhower did four decades ago, that America's purpose in the world includes peaceful relations among nations and support for the democratic aspirations of all peoples who are deprived their basic human and political rights.

If we are serious about regime change in Iraq, it should be the cutting edge of an American policy for peaceful change and democratic reform in the Middle East. In the absence of democracy, radical politics and terrorism will continue to thrive. The region faces a crossroads between the old ways of authoritarianism, extremism, and despair, and the hard work of managing the peaceful transition to democracy and open economies. We cannot escape our engagement with Iraq and the Middle East.

American power alone cannot carry the day in a project of this magnitude. We need our allies and friends because we cannot afford to fail. It will require substantial assistance from our allies, including our Arab allies. Attempting to rebuild Iraq with only a Western hand would be an enormous mistake.

Thomas Friedman recently reminded us that, "Iraq is a war of choice, not a war of no choice, and it is a war of choice that will require a lot of nation-building if it is to produce a more peaceful Iraq. If the Bush team can enlist the backing of the U.N. and key allies, there is a real chance that such an operation can be successful."

The prospect for a stable and peaceful world fails if America and her allies fail in Iraq, the Middle East, and Central and South Asia. We will judge victory or failure not only by the military measurement, but more importantly, the measurement of "the day after" and the "day after that." And as Friedman continued in his recent column, "launching a war of choice in Iraq, with an ambivalent U.S. public and no allies, could make for a frustrating, dangerous, and endless Day 3."

I end where I began, with President Eisenhower's emphasis on the centrality of purpose in American foreign policy, "to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among people and among nations." He continued: "Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."

President Eisenhower's words remind us that the relationship of purpose to power determines the nature of our role in the world and guides us through times of crisis and change. His were different times, the global challenges, including the potential for nuclear war, were of a different texture and complexity. But his lesson still applies in today's world of danger and opportunity. Power alone is not a measure of our national character. It will be American purpose and commitment to making a better world for all people that will set the foundation for global stability well into this new century.

Into such a world of possibilities we ride -- knowing that we have within our grasp the potential to advance the cause of mankind with the strength and nobility of our purpose, allied with those around the world who share our purpose. History rarely presents such times for human progress as it does today. We will not fail.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents