[Pages S7110-S7113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BOB DOLE AND AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, early this week Senator Dole delivered an
important speech to the Philadelphia World Affairs Council in which he
addressed the need for leadership in the 21st century.
Senator McCain and I were privileged to have witnessed Senator Dole's
first speech on foreign policy dealing with our relations with our
Asian allies and friends. But in Philadelphia, Senator Dole called
attention to our relationship with Europe, an area which, of course, by
his previous service in World War II, he is infinitely familiar with.
He talked about the need to call our attention back to leadership.
He said our success has not been the result of luck, but of
leadership. I think he was absolutely correct in pointing out that
communism and the Berlin Wall did not fall. They were demolished by a
clear vision and consistent leadership.
I recall, Mr. President, that once when Mikhail Gorbachev came to the
United States, he made a statement, I believe out in San Francisco, and
he said: ``The cold war is over. Let's not

[[Page S7111]]

debate or argue about who won the war.'' That prompted a prominent
columnist to observe that would be the equivalent of having Max
Schmeling knocked out by Joe Louis and getting up from the canvas and
saying, ``This fight is over. Let's not argue about who won the
fight.'' It was worth arguing about who won the fight because of the
demands placed upon the American people and their agreement to measure
up to those demands itself.
Senator Dole touched on many aspects in his speech. I am going to ask
unanimous consent that the full statement be included in the Record.
But he noted, for example, that when the United States was focused
almost exclusively on Mikhail Gorbachev, he was one who reached out to
Boris Yeltsin, who at that time was being shunned by virtually
everybody. He realized before Gorbachev's star was eclipsed that others
had to follow. Others recognized his demise later. So Bob Dole was in
the forefront of not just focusing on one individual, but focusing on
our relationship with the country.
Mr. President, instead, we seem to have pursued a grand bet instead
of a grand bargain. We are betting once again on an individual. We had
stuck with Mikhail Gorbachev even as Yeltsin was coming up to the
forefront. Now we have shifted to a fascination with Boris Yeltsin, who
once mounted a tank in the streets of Moscow, who is now mounting tank
assaults in the streets of the cities of Chechnya, killing thousands of
innocent citizens, going from fighting a coup in the Kremlin to
fomenting coups in the independent republics of the Caucasus.
Mr. President, we need to make very clear, in terms of our
relationship with Russia, that we intend to maintain help, maintain the
independence of countries in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia,
some of whom will become as important to the United States as the gulf
states have been over the years, and whose states we fought a war to
preserve that independence.
We need to make clear, as Senator Dole did in his speech, ``that
Russian economic blackmail and military meddling in their former empire
will carry costs in terms of relations with the United States.''
Mr. President, I have a number of other points I would like to make.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of Senator Dole's address to the
Philadelphia World Affairs Council be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[Remarks prepared for delivery by Bob Dole, Republican candidate for
President of the United States, Philadelphia World Affairs Council,
June 25, 1996]

Leadership for a New Century

America came of age in the middle of this century, when the
interests and ideals of Western democracies faced their
greatest moment of peril. Our rite of passage is marked by
neat rows of white crosses in quiet corners of Europe where
America left to rest so many thousands of her sons and
daughters. Buried with them was any belief that America could
prosper undisturbed by Europe's recurrent calamities. We
accepted then and recognize now that our security and
Europe's are joined, and that our alliance offers the best
hope for resisting any threat to the peace in Europe and to
the civilization we share.
In this city, this cradle of democracy, just steps from the
Liberty Bell, stands the house of Thaddeus Kosciuszko, the
18th-Century Polish patriot whose love of liberty brought him
to Philadelphia as one of the first foreign volunteers in our
struggle for independence. Kosciuszko understood that a love
of liberty unites citizens from across the world. We have an
interest in helping Poland consolidate its hard-won freedom
today, just as a son of Poland once supported ours.
America's interests in Europe are as compelling and as
urgent as they were before the Berlin Wall was breached by
the stronger forces of human yearning. Yet President Clinton
has persistently deferred to our allies and to the Russians,
subordinating American interests to the interests of a
dubious or ineffective consensus. That's not leadership. And
that has harmed the interests of all of us--Russian, Europe,
and American alike.
What is urgently needed is a restoration of American
leadership in Europe--leadership that understands the purpose
and promise of America's role in Europe. Let us begin by
reaffirming that Europe's security is indispensable to the
security of the United States, and that American leadership
is absolutely indispensable to the security of Europe. The
Cold War's successful conclusion has not altered this
fundamental premise of our engagement in Europe.
Let me be absolutely clear. With the end of the Cold War,
we should be building firm foundations for a century of
peace, fulfilling the promise of a new future for Europe.
Instead, Bill Clinton's policy of indecision, vacillation and
weakness is making the world a more dangerous place. And we
are missing an opportunity that may never come again.
As president I will restore decisiveness and purpose to
America's foreign policy.
Today's great tragedy is that this administration is
squandering the inheritance that America--through 45 years of
struggle and sacrifce--won for free peoples everywhere when
we won the Cold War.
This victory for freedom in the Cold War was achieved
through leadership--leadership that understood the vital
importance of America's power and America's example to the
world.
Bill Clinton and his advisors didn't understand that then.
They don't understand it now. It's time we had an
administration that did. I intend to give America that
administration.
The need for change could not be more urgent.
In an era of tectonic shifts in world affairs, we must not
continue to entrust American leadership to would-be statesmen
still suffering from a post-Vietnam syndrome. This historic
moment will not wait upon Administration officials who
believe that our Cold War mission was mistaken--not
principled and noble--and who are still suffering from the
illusion that communism merely fell instead of being pushed.
It is time to take our foreign policy out of the hands of
an administration engaged in the dreamy pursuit of an
international order, that cherishes romantic illusions about
the soul of a former adversey--an administration that doubts
American power, questions American purpose, and cannot
fulfill American promise.
It is time for a restoration of American leadership based
on the democratic values that are shared by our allies--and
increasingly by other nations as well.
For fifty years, American statesmen from both parties--
Democratic and Republican--have understood that the security
of Europe is vital to the security of the United States.
For fifty years, Americans have understood that aggression
and conflict in Europe could lead to the domination of Europe
by a hostile power, and that if all the power in Europe were
in hostile hands, the United States would be directly
threatened.
For fifty years, Americans have understood that the
economic strength and growing prosperity of Western Europe
were critical for our own economic success.
For fifty years, Americans have understood that Germany's
full integration into the security structures of the West
solved a hundred-year-old problem that had made the 20th
Century one of the most violent in recorded human history.
These are America's interests in Europe. They are just as
compelling and urgent today as they have ever been.
Nothing better illustrates President Clinton's failure of
leadership than his uncertain and vacillating policies toward
Bosnia.
After three years of opposing Congressional efforts to
enable Bosnia to defend itself--arguing that lifting the arms
embargo would involve America in a Balkan quagmire--President
Clinton committed American military forces on the ground in
Bosnia. Although I believe this commitment would not have
been necessary if we had done what I recommended from the
start. I made the decision to support our troops. It was not
popular, but I learned a long time ago that young Americans
risking their lives should never doubt the support of this
government and the American people.
After haphazardly getting America into Bosnia, President
Clinton now has no idea how to get Americans out or how to
accomplish the mission they went to fulfill. President
Clinton promised to lift the arms embargo, and then changed
his mind. He allowed NATO to act as a subcontractor to the
whims of the United Nations bureaucrats and Secretary General
Boutros Boutros-Ghali. He refused to allow the Bosnian people
the fundamental right to defend themselves, and instead gave
a green light for the terrorists of Tehran to establish a
beachhead in Europe. And, at long last, under Congressional
pressure, he committed the United States to the arming and
training of Bosnia--``I give you my word''; he wrote. Yet six
months after the Dayton Accords, not a single bullet has been
delivered, and Bosnia remains outgunned.
American Presidents from Truman to Reagan proclaimed
doctrines that affirm the right of self-defense against
aggression. Yet President Clinton still will not do what he
has promised since 1994; give the Bosnian people the right to
defend themselves. Does the ``Clinton Doctrine'' provide for
the right of self-defense only if it is done covertly by
sworn enemies of the United States?
Unless we vigorously move to train and equip the Bosnians,
the U.S. and NATO will face a ``stay or fail'' dilemma in
Bosnia; either pull out and ignore the resulting disaster, or
become involved in an open-ended commitment with no clear
purpose, no achievable mission, and no realistic exit
strategy.
Today, the credibility of NATO is on the line in Bosnia
and, once again, American leadership is lacking.
Today, the Bosnian people do not have freedom of movement,
but war criminals do.
Today, reports about widespread violations of the Dayton
Accords are suppressed by order of the Clinton
Administration.

[[Page S7112]]

Today, despite the fact that conditions for free and fair
elections quite plainly do not exist in most of Bosnia, the
Clinton Administration continues to push for them anyway. The
whole world knows the Clinton Administration has its eye more
on American elections in November than Bosnian elections in
September.
Let me turn now to Russia.
President Clinton's misguided romanticism towards Russia
has led him and his advisors to try to fine-tune the
intrigues of Russian domestic politics instead of guarding
against the nationalist turn in Russian foreign policy that
has already occurred. Post-Soviet Russia has proved all too
willing to repeat old patterns, challenging the interests of
America and the West. And many of those challenges were
excused, ignored and even encouraged by the Clinton
Administration.
Just over a week ago, President Yeltsin narrowly won the
initial round of Russia's first direct presidential
elections. The second round has been scheduled for July 3rd.
President Yeltsin appears to be ahead. President Yeltsin has
had a central role in the demise of the Soviet Union. He has
earned his place in Russian history. I remember going out to
meet him at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington in June of
1991. I was virtually alone at the time, but I was convinced
that his contributions and his potential to change his
country should be recognized. The next year, he and I took a
memorable trip to my home state of Kansas.
Boris Yeltsin has changed Russia--its neighbors are
independent, its economy is open, and its people are free.
President Yeltsin has taken positive steps since the first
round of elections, such as dismissal of hard-line advisors.
I hope he wins next month's elections. I hope the Russian
people decisively reject their communist past. But whatever
happens, America has interests that must be protected and
values that should be promoted.
I am not here to engage in a debate over ``Who lost
Russia.'' Russia was never ours to lose. Russia is a great
and powerful nation with a proud people and a vibrant
culture. Its future is for the Russian people to decide. But
I am here to ask ``Who looks out for American interests in
Central and Eastern Europe today?'' And if we answer that
question properly, we can avoid debates tomorrow over ``Who
lost Ukraine?'' or ``Who lost the Baltics?''
Make no mistake: I want the Russian people to succeed in
their quest for enduring liberty and democracy.
I have a vision of: a free and prosperous Russia living at
peace with its neighbors; a new democratic Russia entering
the G-7 after its reforms have been consolidated; a Russia
with a special relationship with an enlarged NATO; a Russia
willing to respect the independence and sovereignty of all
its neighbors; a Russia able to harness the energy of its
people and the resources of its territory to realize the
promise of its future.
But we should have no illusions about Russia's journey: it
will be long, it will be difficult and it will be uncertain.
As president, my foreign policy will strive to consolidate
our Cold War victory in Europe. I will replace President
Clinton's misguided romanticism with leadership for a
new century--a century that can realize the peaceful
promise of a new Europe . . . leadership that will avoid
the mistakes that led to so much bloodshed in the century
we are now leaving behind.
My policy will reinforce the independence of all the states
of the former Soviet Union, will support the new democracies
of Europe, will lead to the enlargement of the North Atlantic
alliance, and will advance effective counter-proliferation
measures. In doing so, I will deal with the Russia that
exists today--not the Russia we all hope to see.
Let's look at the reality.
Russian hard-line security services have regained much of
their previous power. The communist-controlled Duma voted in
March to annul the treaty that formally dissolved the Soviet
Union. Too often, the privatization of state-owned
enterprises has served to enrich pervasive organized criminal
networks. The Jewish Agency, laboring mightily to aid
emigration from Russia, has been shut down, and ominous signs
of anti-Semitism are reappearing.
Since December 1994, the world has witnessed the specter of
a Russian democrat, Yeltsin, permitting the bombing of cities
in Chechnya to appease Russian nationalists. More than 30,000
people have been killed, the vast majority innocent
bystanders. Yet, President Clinton's misguided romanticism
led him to compare Russian brutality in Chechnya to the
American Civil War. This is a comparison as naive about
history as it is offensive both to the memory of Abraham
Lincoln and the brave people in Russia who have called for an
end to the bloodshed.
By remaining passive in the face of these and other
troubling developments, President Clinton has given a green
light to the most dangerous tendencies in the New Russia. I
will not let illusions about the Russia we hope to see
prevent me from seeing clearly the Russia that truly exists.
Forces in Russia have waged a campaign of subversion,
intimidation and economic blackmail against other independent
states of the former Soviet Union--from the Baltics and
Ukraine to the Caucasus and Central Asia. In 1994, the
stirrings of Russia's neo-imperial policy were excused by
President Clinton in this astonishing statement: ``There will
be times when you are involved, and you will be more likely
to be invoked in some of these areas near you, just like the
United States has been involved in the last several years in
Panama and Grenada near our area.''
Now, President Clinton may not know the difference between
the liberation of Grenada from communist thugs and Russian
intimidation of Georgia or the Baltic states, but I do.
I will make clear the U.S. interest and desire to maintain
the independence of countries in Europe--from the Baltic Sea
to the Black Sea--and in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
I will make clear that Russian economic blackmail or
military meddling in their former empire will carry costs in
relations with the United States. Anything less sends a
signal that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is
reversible and that the hard-fought freedom of formerly
Captive Nations is not our concern.
Russian officials have conducted a campaign of threats
against NATO expansion, and President Clinton got the
message. He deferred and delayed--placing the threats of
Russian nationalists before the aspirations of democrats in
countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. It is
an outrage that the patriots who threw off the chains of
Soviet bondage are told that they must wait.
I will stand firmly with the champions of democracy. I will
not grant Russia a veto over NATO enlargement. The Russians
should be told that NATO is a defensive alliance. It is not
now and has never been the NATO of old Soviet propaganda.
Stable and secure democracies in Central Europe will be good
for America, good for Europe, and, yes, good for Russia.
My policy toward Russia will employ effective measures to
defend against weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles.
While the threat of immediate nuclear holocaust has
receded, the risk of accidental launch has increased. This
makes missile defense more feasible and more necessary. Yet
President Clinton is unwilling to have the United States
defend itself against even a single incoming nuclear missile.
At the same time, President Clinton has been silent about
Russian violations of arms control treaties such as START I
and the Biological Weapons Convention. He has ignored the
Russian decision to abandon the Bilateral Destruction Accord
on chemical weapons. He rewarded Russian violations of the
conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty by giving Russia a
better deal.
As President, I will not renegotiate arms control
agreements to indulge Russian ambitions in the Baltics, the
Caucasus or anywhere else.
As President, I will link Russian adherence to existing
arms control treaties to the provision of U.S. assistance.
I will end the misguided efforts to include theater missile
defenses under the ABM treaty--no more ``dumbing down'' our
missile defenses and dulling our technological edge. The
Clinton Administration views the ABM treaty as the
cornerstone of its arms control policy. I view it as an
historical relic that does not reflect the new realities of
proliferation, and seeks instead to preserve the Cold War
balance of nuclear terror.
Russia also faces a growing threat from missile
proliferation. As President, I will engage the Russians in a
direct discussion about the mutual benefits of missile
defense and urge them to cooperate with us on this critical
issue.
But one thing will be certain in my administration: the
American people will no longer be left vulnerable to
ballistic missile attack. When I am President, we will
deploy an effective national missile defense. We can
afford it. We can do it. We should begin now.
We must also understand that the linchpin of U.S. and
European security is NATO. But as the world has changed, so,
too, must NATO change. As former Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher recently said, ``Our energies must be directed
toward strengthening NATO, which is as important in the post-
Cold War world as in the circumstances of its creation.'' And
while our allies can and should take a greater share of the
burden, we should not nurture the illusion that this is a
substitute for American leadership.
We have the opportunity to forge a new consensus in support
of a common defense that includes Central and Eastern Europe.
Fifty years ago, in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill
spoke his famous line: ``From Stettin in the Baltic to
Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across
the Continent.'' Today, the iron curtain has been raised, but
a security vacuum remains in Europe--from the coast of a
democratic Poland to the shores of a free Slovenia.
As the nations of Central and Eastern Europe stretch out
their hand to the West, as they offer to stake the lives of
their people in the common defense of our democracies, the
Clinton Administration proudly proclaims their policy is
``slow but deliberate.'' Seven years after the collapse of
communism, it is clear President Clinton's policy is
deliberately slow. If the Clinton Administration's confused
and timid approach had been followed in 1990, we would still
be studying German unification today.
The enlargement of NATO will strengthen security, freedom
and peace in Europe. It will secure the gains of democracy in
Central Europe. It will stabilize the security of Europe in
which Russia also has a stake. It will ensure that security
concerns in Eastern Europe are addressed through NATO. It
will demonstrate to post-Soviet Russia that the

[[Page S7113]]

freedom that Eastern and Central Europe gained in 1989 is
permanent. And it will be an unmistakable safeguard against a
reversal of democratic trends in Russia.
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic should be offered
full NATO membership today. Many other nations from Slovenia
to the Baltics rightly aspire to this goal. And Ukraine,
despite the great pressures of its geography, remains a
willing, dedicated, and welcome participant in cooperative
activities with NATO. As I said, NATO enlargement is a
process that should begin with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic--but it should not end there.
When I am elected President, I will urge NATO to begin
accession talks with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic,
and to set the goal of welcoming new NATO members at a summit
in Prague in 1998--the 60th anniversary of the betrayal of
Munich, the 50th anniversary of the communist takeover of
Czechoslovakia, and the 30th anniversary of the Soviet
invasion. There could be no more appropriate year or
appropriate place to declare that Central Europe has become a
permanent part of the Atlantic community.
I will actively promote cooperative efforts in NATO to
develop and deploy Europe-wide missile defenses to protect
against missile attack by rogue states poised on NATO's
southern flank.
I will support the integration of Central and Eastern
European militaries into the NATO defense structure, using
the Defense Export Loan Guarantee program--ignored by
President Clinton.
I fully recognize the importance of friendly relations with
Russia. Lest we forget, in 1993 during a summit in Warsaw,
President Boris Yeltsin and then-President Lech Walesa issued
a joint declaration affirming that Poland's desire to join
NATO did ``not run counter to the interests of any state,
including Russia.'' But, as Bill Clinton dragged his feet,
extremist elements in Russia began to set the agenda in
Moscow again. We should not be surprised that hesitation and
vacillation fueled those who thought threats would deter us.
As President, I will not grant Russia a veto over NATO
enlargement but I will offer Russia serious dialogue on long
term relations with NATO. NATO is a defensive organization by
its very nature, and its interests collide with Russia only
where Russia intrudes upon sovereign nations. A non-
expansionist Russia is not threatened by an enlarged NATO.
The hope of the world still rests, as it has throughout
this century, on American leadership. There is no escaping
the fact that only America can lead--others cannot, or will
not, or should not. How firmly we grasp the remarkable
opportunities before us in Europe will determine whether the
next century repeats the violence and tragedy of the last or
opens up a new era of peace, freedom, and security.
The promise of the future has never been greater. With
strong, decisive American leadership, we can make that
promise a reality for ourselves and the generations to come.
Thank you and God bless America.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, we need to make it clear, that we will not
ignore continued Russian violations of biological, chemical and
conventional arms control agreements.
In contrast to an approach based on romanticism, Senator Dole
outlined:
An approach based on realism and a clear understanding of American
interests.
A strategy that will reinforce the independence of the states of the
former Soviet Union, that will support the new democracies of Europe,
and that will strengthen NATO and lead to its enlargement.
A policy that will deal with Russia as it exists today, so that we
can effectively use what leverage we have to encourage Russia to become
the country we hope it will be--free, prosperous, respectful of and
cooperative with its neighbors.
But not a policy that is based on the illusion that Russia already
has reached this stage of development.
Mr. President, there are many important elements to Senator Dole's
speech, and I urge all Senators to take the time to read it.
Mr. President, I now yield my remaining 4 minutes to the Senator from
Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to join my friend and colleague
from Maine in congratulating Senator Dole on his second very important
foreign policy/national security speech, this time concerning our
relations with Europe. I believe that he is establishing a conceptual
framework with a clear vision and clear idea as to what we want the
world to look like in the next century and a clearer definition of
those threats as they are today and as we envision them in the future.
Although the speech was about Europe, I think it is important,
although tragic, to note that an act of terror was committed just about
the same time this speech was given, which is a compelling statement as
to how fragile democracy is throughout the world and how easily acts of
terror can be committed which take the lives of American citizens.
Mr. President, one of the major parts of the Dole speech given in
Philadelphia was the subject of NATO. In it he says:

We must understand the linchpin of U.S. and European
security is NATO. But as the world has changed, so, too, must
NATO change. As former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
recently said, ``Our energies must be directed towards
strengthening NATO, which is as important in the post-Cold
War world as in the circumstances of its creation.'' And
while our allies can and should take a greater share of the
burden, we should not nurture the illusion that this is a
substitute for American leadership.

American leadership is what the Dole speech was all about, Mr.
President, American leadership in a world that is fraught with danger,
that has become much less dangerous, but a much less predictable one.
This speech that is articulated by Senator Dole is a clear vision and a
clear call and challenge to the American people to again recognize that
we cannot discard the mantle of leadership which was handed down to us
early in this century.
Finally, Mr. President, Senator Dole said--I think it is worth
repeating----

The hope of the world still rests, as it has throughout
this century, on American leadership. There is no escaping
the fact that only America can lead--others cannot, or will
not, or should not. How firmly we grasp the remarkable
opportunities before us in Europe will determine whether the
next century repeats the violence and tragedy of the last or
opens up a new era of peace, freedom, and security.

Mr. President, I want to again congratulate Senator Dole on an
outstanding speech. I commend it to all of my colleagues and the
American people. I yield the floor.

____________________