Connecting Foreign Policy:
Relevance, Challenge, and the Need for Leadership

Let me begin by this observation which you all understand very well: Policies must be relevant to the challenges. It has always been my belief that we fail in our policies when we do not connect the policy to the relevant issue. One of the reasons that there is no constituency in foreign policy across America is that we have never really connected foreign policy with the average American.

What is foreign policy? Is it some esoteric, theoretical, Metternich-Kissingeresque kind of thing hanging there? No, foreign policy is relevant. Foreign policy includes trade, exports, our role in the world, our engagement with the world, and national security. It connects to every dynamic of our society. An hour before Madeleine Albright’s confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January of 1997, I said to her, “Madame Ambassador, I would ask you one thing. As you embark on your new journey and this new grand adventure as Secretary of State, make foreign policy relevant to America. Help educate America as to why this is important. Work with the Congress and connect foreign policy to all Americans.” And I think Secretary Albright has had some successes with that.

The Congress has an immense amount of responsibility for foreign policy. And I would say that, as we go into this next presidential election year, international affairs will very much dominate the national debate. I don’t believe we have seen a presidential election in this country since 1980 that has really focused on America’s role in the world, international issues, and national defense. And things have certainly gotten more complicated since 1980. (I hope, like all of you, that the United States does not find itself in the same situation in which we found ourselves in 1980. I don’t believe we will.) The point is this: No longer is there a domestic policy on this side and an international policy on that side; no longer can we govern and legislate in a vacuum; no longer can we take national defense and put it here, foreign policy there, trade policy here, tax policy there and not connect them. We need and do not yet have an overarching policy that connects them all.

The lack of an overarching policy is not all the fault of the President or the Congress. We’re living during a unique, dynamic time in the history of man. But so did Harry Truman. Think back to the decisions he had to make with no blueprint, no road map, nobody to say, “Well, we did this 50 years ago, so you should try this”; think of those momentous decisions—critical decisions—that shaped the world for the better. Go right across the board and what Harry Truman had to deal with was rather significant. I think we are much in the same position today, as we will be over the next few years, with a rather grand opportunity to help shape this world for the better. There is more opportunity and more hope, and, yes, there is also more uncertainty and more danger.

We are still trying to come to grips with developing a consistent, clear, coherent policy on how we deal with the world since the implosion of the Soviet Union. We’re not there yet. That is why I believe, one, much of the presidential debate will revolve around international issues in some way; two, the next President is going to be faced with immense international challenges; and three, it will be incumbent upon the new administration that’s elected next year and the Congress to work together in developing that comprehensive, overarching policy.

The Chairman noted in introducing Lee Hamilton and me that we come from the heartland. And I have been asked before, “Senator Hagel, why would you be so presumptuous to think that you might know anything about foreign policy?” What I said was this: The farmers, the ranchers, and the small business people in Nebraska have understood foreign policy long before any fancy professors at Harvard figured it out—long before. And you know why? Not because they’re any smarter, but because it was relevant, because they understood a long time ago that if you can’t sell your corn, your beef, your pork, and your small business products, that impacts every facet of your life. It backs right up to the schoolhouse: If there’s not enough tax base that means you’re not going to have any new schoolbooks for the kids to learn. Pretty simple.

We tend to complicate things in Washington. There’s a whole business out there for complicating things. You hire consultants, then you hire lawyers, then you hire image people and public relations people, and then you’ve made it more complicated, and then you hire more. But eventually, we are going to have to face up to the need for leadership. Leadership is the core that drives all policies. Policies that reflect the challenges have to be implemented and the Congress is part of that.

You’re very familiar with unilateral economic sanctions, what they do and what they don’t do. I believe sanctions is an area that the Congress will work on this year. I think it’s an area where we have some strong bipartisan cooperation. I have been involved in that area over the last two years with Lee Hamilton’s colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, who is going to champion this issue. A number of Democrats and Republicans have come together and I think we can actually make some progress. This week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee we had a hearing on Cuba. I’m not sure how tangible that hearing was, but we did get to some of the issues. The point is that we are starting to confront some of the challenges.

Unfortunately, I think we all are going to have to be careful about holding foreign policy captive to political gain. Both parties do it, have done it, and will continue to try to do it. I was a little disturbed by a front page story in the New York Times this morning about the Republican Party’s new issue for next year: foreign policy. Well, first, it is not wise to build foreign policy on what you believe is a good political party platform. Foreign policy should be based on what’s good for the country and what’s good for the world. Yes, there are differences, there should be differences, and those differences should be articulated, but we should come to those differences not because they’re good for the Republicans or good for the Democrats, but good for the country.

But again, it’s going to take leadership—very forthright, tangible, meaningful, gutsy leadership. I think we have been without that kind of leadership in this decade in the Congress and in the White House. Ricocheting from crisis to crisis is not foreign policy. It is not any policy at all.

I said earlier that I believe that we have an immense opportunity to shape this world, maybe like no other nation has had before. I do believe we are right on the edge. If we don’t provide the kind of leadership the world is going to require—when I say “we,” I don’t mean just America, but the civilized world—we will actually see the progress that’s been made in the world over the last ten years erode. It will be a more dangerous world if we don’t get out in front of it.

We have to face the fact that we live in a global community anchored by a global economy. We all understand that fact rather clearly now. What we all thought more than a year and a half ago was a currency blip problem in Thailand spread to become a rather serious economic crisis in many parts of the world. It touched all of us. The U.S. agriculture community’s income for 1998 will be about $5 billion less than what we had in 1997, just the reverse of what agriculture’s been doing in this decade—increases of $2-4 billion a year. You know the economics of much of this.

This is all going to have to be part of a comprehensive policy and you can’t take it piece by piece. They are connected. And that is going to require courageous leadership. That leadership must come from the new administration, but it must also come from the Congress of the United States. It is our responsibility as public officials, representatives of society, to help make the case that this leadership is important for all of us.

At a very disturbing hearing this week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Adm. Bill Crowe talked about embassy security. We all know what happened in August in Africa at two American embassies. Adm. Crowe came up with a study recently that proposed some rather significant investments in embassy security to protect our foreign service people. We have let that slide, partly because there is no political constituency out there for me to go back to Nebraska—or for any Congressman or Senator to go back to their states and districts—and say, “It’s important that we put $11 billion more in embassy security.” And, again, we fail to connect what this investment is about: This is an investment for stability and peace and for our country and economy. When you have stable, secure, peaceful areas of the world that develop democracies and market economies, it is reasonably likely that you can sell your corn, beef, and small business products. So, again, we’ve failed to make that connection. Making that connection will be the great challenge, I think.

I referred to the challenges that we’re facing today—borderless challenges. The Congress is behind in grasping this fact. Most of you in this room have understood this for many years. International business has understood this for many years. There is no such thing as a border anymore. State borders, national borders—gone. Telecommunications, the internet, technology, and transportation have totally changed the nature of national borders, but we do not have policies that deal with this change. Whether it’s commercial policy, national defense policy, or foreign policy, we have an overarching need for a complete policy that addresses this change.

The other danger in today’s world is the China situation. I fear that some people in both parties of the Congress—probably my party more than the other party—and some presidential candidates will use this China problem—and it’s real—as a way to invent a new Soviet Union. These people need a new enemy. So, according to them, we should seize upon the problems we have with China and magnify them, rather than drive to a solution. That is a very real problem. We all are going to have to show rather remarkable restraint and discipline, and not allow how we handle the Chinese to get out of hand. We have differences, we have problems; yes, we have to address the problems, but there must be some balance. As always, there must be some perspective and balance that we apply to this situation. I would hope that you all would stay very closely attuned to this situation in the spheres of influence in which you all work and live.

* * *

Well I am rather optimistic. Even though Lee Hamilton is out of the Congress, I am still optimistic that we are going to make some progress. I think that we will, in fact, rise to the occasion. I think that we are up to the task. This country will force the changes, working from the bottom up. We will respond to our constituencies and to the world challenges. And I think, as dangerous and uncertain as the world is, that over the next few years we will, in fact, be able to put together policies that will make the world safer, better, and more prosperous. But it will take a lot of discipline and leadership in working together to put our country and the world first.