17 September 1998
(SecState may urge veto of foreign affairs money bill) (2920) Washington -- Secretary of State Albright has urged Congress to fully fund the Clinton administration's foreign affairs program, warning that the appropriations bill now working its way through Congress "would make dramatic and unacceptable cuts" in the President's fund requests while attaching "burdensome restrictions" on their expenditure. "If this bill reaches the President's desk in its current form," Albright said during a September 17 address to the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, "I will be compelled by my responsibilities as Secretary of State to recommend its veto." She noted that US spending on international affairs is down to about one percent of the Federal budget, and the 1999 request is, in real terms, $3.7 billion ($3,700 million) below the International Affairs budget submitted by the Bush administration for its final year. The Secretary again urged that the US Congress fund US contributions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations. "If we want a strong voice in any reforms that are made, we must maintain our influence by paying our share," Albright said. Following is the State Department text of her remarks, as prepared for delivery: (begin text) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman As Prepared for Delivery September 17, 1998 Remarks by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace Washington, D.C. Thank you, Jessica; and let me take a moment to thank you as well for all the work you have done over the years, both at the State Department and beyond, to put global issues into the mainstream of foreign policy thinking. Carnegie is lucky to have you. And we are lucky to have Carnegie. You have provided a steady stream of foreign policy talent to the State Department, from Steve Sestanovich and David Scheffer to standout Carnegie board members such as Strobe Talbott and Greg Craig. In addition to being a source of great people, Carnegie has been -- and I know will continue to be -- a rich source of ideas. I, for one, am counting on this, because the issues that Carnegie focuses on are the ones that will determine the legacy of our generation and the identity of our age. What matters most for the future of our children is not the preoccupations of the moment, but whether the broad opportunities of this era are squandered or seized. For example, will the trend towards open markets and free trade resume or grind to a halt as a result of the financial crisis? Will the worldwide movement towards democracy continue or go into reverse? Will we succeed in curbing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, or find ourselves confronted in the new century with catastrophes unmatched even by those of the old? Will we find a way to resolve conflicts and build a global culture of peace, or be surrounded by regional and civil wars conducted with ever-more deadly weapons at ever-greater risk to our own society? These are the questions that matter, but perhaps above all is a question related to each of the others: will the United States of America continue to lead, or will we hide our heads in the sand out of indifference, complacency or fear? Will we, in years to come, play the role of eagle, or ostrich? It is this last question that I want to discuss today. Some suggest that Americans have turned inward and are no longer willing to bear the costs and risks of leadership. I do not believe that, but I do know that we have reached a critical moment in our effort to shape the post Cold War world. Now more than ever, we need bipartisan support in Congress and broad support from the American people. Only with that will we succeed in our broad objective of bringing the world closer together around basic principles of democracy, open markets, law and a commitment to peace. That is why I want today to shine a spotlight on finding decisions that will be made on Capitol Hill between now and when Congress adjourns early next month. Those decisions will have a major impact on America's capacity to lead. In the aftermath of the US embassy bombings in Africa, we are asking for resources to improve the security of those who represent America overseas, and to strengthen our fight against terror. We are also asking Congress to reconsider its current course and to make the investments we have requested in peace, freedom, stability and human development. These are the bread and butter investments that back our leadership with substance and enable us to further our interests and promote our ideals around the globe. First, let me deal with the immediate needs we face in the aftermath of the murderous attacks in Kenya and Tanzania. We must demonstrate in concrete and unmistakable ways that America will not be intimidated by terror. We will keep our commitments. And we will work with others to ensure that, sooner or later, one way or another, terrorists are held accountable for their crimes. The fight against terror is an old struggle that has entered a grim new phase with the emergence of terrorist coalitions that do not answer fully to any government, that operate across national borders and have access to advanced technology. Their goal is to cause America to abandon its friends, allies and responsibilities. Since the Beirut bombings 15 years ago, the security of our diplomatic posts has been a bipartisan priority. More than $1 billion has been spent building and upgrading facilities, but it remains a work in progress. In the past month, we have stepped up these efforts, while responding to a multitude of additional threats. By so doing, we believe we have foiled several planned attacks and thereby saved many lives. But all this requires money -- millions of dollars now, and many millions more in the future. After the Africa bombings, we can no longer consider any post low-threat. We must build secure facilities to replace those that were destroyed. We must address elsewhere the kind of security deficiencies that made the posts in Kenya and Tanzania tempting targets. And we have an obligation to help the thousands of innocent people affected by the bombings. By so doing, we can show that terrorists will not succeed in driving a wedge between the United States and our friends and allies around the world. Within the next few days, the Administration will submit a formal request for supplemental funds to beef up our diplomatic security and finance an even stronger counter-terrorism campaign. I have been heartened by the support we have received in our preliminary discussions with Congress, and I am hopeful that our request will be acted upon promptly. I emphasize, however, that this is not a one-time, short-term problem -- unless we want to turn our embassies into prisons, from which our diplomats monitor events on CNN; or to shrink dramatically the number of our overseas posts, which would make it impossible to protect our interests, and leave the impression of an America in retreat. Moreover, security means more than safety from bombs and guns, and it demands more than guards and concrete walls. Security requires a world in which America's vital interests are not at risk, and in which the values we cherish are widely shared. To build that kind of world, we must do more than build safer embassies. We must also do more to promote democracy, sound economic practices, and respect for the rule of law. But unfortunately, for the past decade, we have been cutting foreign policy positions and slowing expenditures on international affairs -- which now constitute only about one percent of the Federal budget. Moreover, the foreign operations appropriations bills approved by the Senate and now being considered by the House would make dramatic and unacceptable cuts in the amounts requested by President Clinton, while attaching burdensome restrictions to the expenditure of those finds. If this bill reaches the President's desk in its current form, I will be compelled by my responsibilities as Secretary of State to recommend its veto. We have two opportunities to work together on this and make sure our diplomacy has the resources it needs: the first is when the House votes on the bill, as early as this afternoon. The second, more realistically, is when the two houses meet to prepare a single version. The rapid progress and cooperative spirit of our efforts on the supplemental shows that we can work together, if we recognize what is at stake. And when we are talking about the success or failure of American foreign policy, the stakes are high indeed. For example, President Clinton laid out this Monday a bold outline for American leadership in confronting the international financial crisis. On this critical issue, the United States, with the world's largest economy, has a unique responsibility to lead. But we cannot lead without resources. We need money for emergency assistance, for institution-building and to pay our contributions to the International Monetary Fund, which bears the brunt of short-term support for nations at risk. I will not argue that the IMF's response to the crisis has been perfect. But it has stood between us and deeper problems; and it has helped keep smaller economies from being destroyed. If we want countries under threat to have a source of assistance other than ourselves, and if we want a strong voice in any reforms that are made, we must maintain our influence by paying our share. At a time when our business, investors, farmers and workers are looking to Washington for leadership in calming a jittery world economy, it is, frankly, hard for me to understand why the leadership of the House of Representatives -- the people's house -- would fail to support IMF funding to the utmost. I am grateful for the efforts made on the Senate side. And I hope that the final version of the appropriations bill will include the President's full request. The financial crisis has left Russia facing a particularly difficult and uncertain future. Russia's economic problems are deep and complex. We cannot solve them -- only Russians can do that. But neither is it in our interest to declare Russia a failure and walk away. For while we do not have to worry about waking up to find the hammer and sickle waving over the Kremlin, we do have important interests in a Russia that is stable, peaceful, and moving toward democracy and prosperity, not tyranny and despair. We have a vital interest in seeing that former Soviet nuclear weapons technology and expertise are controlled, not put up for sale. We have a vital interest in supporting the efforts of the Russian people to build democratic institutions and market structures that are stable, fair and effective. We have a vital interest in helping the Russian people build institutions they can believe in, and develop forms of democracy that help improve their lives. Russia's neighbors -- Ukraine, the states of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and others also face major problems as a result of the financial crisis. But their importance to us as critical elements of a secure Europe, as trading partners, and as new or potential members of the democratic community -- is undiminished. Now is not the time to signal the world that we are giving up on the region and its profound transformation. This year, our request to Congress included substantial increases in assistance programs for the New Independent States. Those programs help develop private businesses, improve nuclear safety, support civil society, and address crime and corruption. Unfortunately, both versions of the appropriations bill would leave our assistance below this year's levels. And the House has proposed conditions that would withhold 50 percent or more of our assistance to Russia, Ukraine and others. We need more flexibility. I ask Congress to remove these restrictions, and to restore finding levels commensurate with the urgency we face. Next week, in New York, the President will give his annual address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. There, before a worldwide audience, he will argue America's case in the fight against terror and for the rule of law. He will discuss the need for firmness in dealing with Saddam Hussein and urge adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is fifty years old this year. All this is appropriate America's role as the world's leading champion of freedom. What is not appropriate is that the President will be asked to go before the world once again with our nation roughly $1 billion behind in payments to the United Nations system. This debt undermines our leadership in an organization our predecessors created and in whose work we have a broad and varied interest. The best America is a leader, not a debtor. I have asked Congress before; I urge Congress now. Before you adjourn, cast a vote for UN reform and for American leadership; cast a vote, at long last, to pay our UN bills. Another test of our willingness to back our leadership with resources is in Korea, where we have pledged to contribute finds to implement the Agreed Framework. The House Appropriations Committee has voted to end those contributions because of concern about North Korea's recent missile launch and other actions that have raised doubts about the intentions of the government in Pyongyang. Rather than moving us toward resolution of our concerns, we think this is a formula for stalemate, and perhaps confrontation. The Clinton Administration has no illusions about North Korea. And we have let North Korea know, in no uncertain terms, the risks involved in its current course. But the Agreed Framework remains central to our ability to press for restraint on missiles and answers to our questions about suspicious underground construction activities. I urge Congress to keep the heat on by meeting our commitments even as we press North Korea's leaders to meet theirs. We also risk failing to provide leadership on critical environmental and social issues. Unless Congress reverses course, we will continue to lag far, far behind in funding international environmental cooperation that helps preserve clean air and water for everyone, including Americans, as well as create markets for our cutting-edge green technology. And we will be unable to support the family-planning programs that help stabilize population growth, reduce maternal and infant mortality, and cut demand for abortions. The proposed "Mexico City" conditions are an assault on the free exchange of ideas that Americans cherish. And their first victims will be the women and families who look to America for help in building better futures for the children they wish to have. Let me emphasize, our overall funding requests are modest. No President, Republican or Democrat, would be seeking less. In fact, our 1999 request, in real terms, is a full $3.7 billion below the last International Affairs budget submitted by President Bush. The challenges have not lessened; neither should our commitment to meeting them. Today, America looks to Capitol Hill for evidence that our representatives will act in the face of new threats and longstanding imperatives to reaffirm America's presence on the center stage of world affairs. I personally am confident. Over the past half-dozen years, I have seen Congress and the Executive come together to dismantle and secure thousands of weapons from the former Soviet Union, enlarge NATO, build peace in Bosnia, support the Agreed Framework, help our partners in the Middle East and enact numerous other measures to further our interests around the globe. Time and time again, we have stood together across party lines. That is what we must do now; for, as history teaches, it is then that America is strongest. A half century ago, our nation was in the midst of a bitterly partisan election campaign as candidates fought for the levers of political power. But in that same testing year of 1948, a Democratic President and a Republican Congress approved the Marshall Plan, laid the groundwork for NATO, established the Voice of America, recognized the infant state of Israel, airlifted lifesustaining aid to a blockaded Berlin and helped an embattled Turkey and Greece remain on freedom's side of the Iron Curtain. There are those who say that Americans have changed and that we are now too inward-looking and complacent to shoulder comparable burdens. But by standing tall, and backing our leadership with resources, we have the opportunity to prove the cynics wrong. American foreign policy is not the province of a particular party, ideology or point of view. It finds its strength not in its brilliance of theory, but in the steadfast qualities of the American people-whose interests it defends and whose values it reflects. Through this century, we have survived and prevailed against aggression, Depression, Fascism and the totalitarian threat. Now, we face new dangers and uncertainties. But we have not lost our confidence, nor have we grown weary. For our country, there are no final frontiers. We are doers. Whatever threats the future may hold, we will meet them. With the memory alive in our hearts of past sacrifice, we will defend our freedom, meet our responsibilities and live up to our principles. To those ends, this afternoon, I pledge my own best efforts. And respectfully solicit your wise counsel and support. Thank you very much. (end transcript)