KISSINGER HAS SAID, OF THE REPUBLIC, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
           WAS IN FACT A SOPHISTICATED REFLECTION OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL
           INTEREST, WHICH WAS SIMPLY, TO FORTIFY THE NEW NATION'S
           INDEPENDENCE UNTIL THE TERM OF THE 20TH CENTURY AMERICAN
           FOREIGN POLICY WAS BASICALLY QUITE SIMPLE. TO FULFILL THE
           COUNTRY'S MANIFEST DESTINY OF EXPANSION IN THIS CONTINENT AND
           TO REMAIN FREE OF ENTANGLEMENTS OVERSEAS. AMERICA FAVORED
           DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE, BUT OBJECT

           JURISDICTION ACTION TO VINDICATE ITS PREFERENCES. IN EARLY IN
           THE 20TH CENTURY THE ISOLATIONIST POLICY PREVAILED IN AMERICA'S
           FOREIGN POLICY. THEN TWO FACTORS PROJECTED AMERICA ON TO THE
           WORLD STAGE INTO WORLD AFFAIRS. ONE, ITS RAPIDLY EXPANDING
           POWER AND THE GRADUAL COLLAPSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
           CENTERED ON EUROPE. WOODROW WILSON TOOK THIS INCREASED AMERICAN
           POWER AND THE SHATTERED EUROPEAN ORDER ADDED TO IT THE
           TRADITIONAL AMERICAN VIEW OF OUR EXCEPTIONAL ROLE IN THE WORLD

           AND DEVELOPED WHAT HAS BECOME THE DOMINANT APPROACH OF MODERN
           AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY-MAKING. AS HE SAID IN 1915 -- PRESIDENT
           WILSON -- "WE INSIST UPON SECURITY IN PROSECUTING OURSELVES
           CHOSEN LINES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. WE DO MORE THAN THAT. WE
           DEMANDED ALSO FOR OTHERS. WE DO NOT CONFINE OUR ENTHUSIASM FOR
           INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND FREE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE
           INCIDENTS AND MOVEMENTS OF AFFAIRS WHICH AFFECT ONLY OURSELVES.
           WE FEEL IT WHEREVER THERE IS A PEOPLE THAT TRIES TO WALK IN

           THESE DIFFICULT PATHS OF INDEPENDENCE AND RIGHT." SO FOR THE
           FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY THE NOTION THAT IT WAS OUR RIGHT
           AND OUR DUTY TO -- QUOTE -- "DESTROY MONSTERS" WHEREVER THEY
           MIGHT BE, WHEREVER THAT MIGHT ARISE WAS ESTABLISHED. WHILE THE
           DETAILS OF CHANGE -- WHILE THE DETAILS HAVE CHANGED FROM TIME
           TO TIME WITH SOME VARIATION IN THE DEGREE OF ENTHUSIASM FOR
           FOREIGN INTERVENTIONS, THIS IS STILL TODAY THE FOUNDATION IN
           DEFINING OUR ROLE IN THE WORLD. IT WAS ELABORATED SOMEWHAT IN

           THE FAMOUS 1947 FOREIGN AFFAIRS ARTICLE PENNED BY "X" LATER
           DISCLOSED TO BE GEORGE KEENAN, WHICH GUIDED OUR ULTIMATELY
           SUCCESSFUL CON DUCTL OF THE COLD WAR BY URGING -- QUOTE -- "A
           POLICY OF FIRM CONTAINMENT DESIGNED TO CONFRONT THE RUSSIANS
           WITH UNALTERABLE COUNTERFORCE AT EVERY POINT WHERE THEY SHOW
           SIGNS OF ENCROACHING UPON THE INTEREST OF A PEACEFUL AND ABLE
           WORLD." TO BE SURE, THERE IS RARELY BEEN A TIME IN AMERICAN
           HISTORY WHEN ALL VOICES HAVE BEEN UNITED BEHIND THE DOMINANT

           APPROACH TO THE U.S. ROLE. MANY IN THIS BODY, INCLUDING MYSELF,
           PARTICIPATEED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IN THE NATIONAL TURMOIL
           OVER THE APPLICATION OF THE CONTAINMENT POLICY. IN SOUTHEAST
           ASIA, IN A PLACE CALLED VIETNAM. BUT WHILE THERE WAS VIGOROUS
           DEBATE ON THE ADVISABILITY OF SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS OF
           WILSONAN IDEALISM THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CHALLENGE SINCE THE
           SECOND WORLD WAR TO WHAT MIGHT BE CALMED INTERNATIONALIST

           INTERVENTIONIST MODEL. YET, AS WE BEGIN THE YEAR 2000 IN THIS
           NEW CENTURY, THE WORLD HAS CHANGED AND SIGNIFICANT -- IN
           SIGNIFICANT WAYS FROM THE ONE WE HAVE KNOWN SINCE WORLD WAR II.
           THE SOVIET UNION IS NO MORE. THE COMMUNISTS DID NOT IN THE END
           BURY US. BUT WITH A FEW NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS, CHINA, CUBA,
           VIETNAM, NORTH KOREA, IT IS THEY WHO HAVE BEEN BURIED BY
           HISTORICAL INEVITABILITY. AGAIN TO QUOTE DR. KISSINGER, "THE

           END OF THE COLD WAR PRODUCED AN ENGREATER TEMPTATION TO RECAST
           THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IN AMERICA'S IMAGE. WILSON HAD
           BEEN CONSTRAINED BY ISOLATIONISM AT HOME, AND TRUMAN HAD COME
           UP AGAINST STALINIST EXPANSIONISM. IN THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD
           THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY REMAINING SUPERPOWER WITH THE
           CAPACITY TO INTERVENE IN EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE. YET, POWER

           HAS BECOME MORE DIFFUSE," DR. KISSINGER SAYS, " "AND THE ISSUES
           TO WHICH MILITARY FORCE IS RELEVANT HAVE DIMINISHED. VICTORY IN
           THE COLD WAR HAS PROPELLED AMERICA INTO A WORLD WHICH BEARS
           MANY SIMILARITIES TO THE ROPEAN STATE SYSTEM OF THE 18TH AND
           19TH CENTURIES AND TO PRACTICES WHICH AMERICAN STATESMEN AND
           THINKERS HAVE CONSISTENTLY QUESTIONED. THE ABSENCE OF BOTH AN
           OVERRIDING IDENTIFY LOGICAL OR STRATEGIC THREAT FREES NATIONS
           TO PUR SIGH FOREIGN POLICIES BASED INCREASINGLY ON THEIR

           IMMEDIATE NATIONAL INTEREST." AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING
           TO ARTICULATE IN THIS DEBATE. WHAT IS THE AMERICAN INTEREST?
           JUST AS THE VERY DIFFERENT INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS FACING
           AMERICA AT THE START OF THE 20TH CENTURY WERE THERE WITH
           GROWING AMERICAN STRENGTH ACCOMPANYING THE COLLAPSE OF THE
           EUROPEAN ORDER, THAT OCCASIONED THE NEED FOR A FUNDAMENTAL
           REASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. PLACE IN THE WORLD. SO AT THE END OF
           THE 20TH CENTURY, WITH AN END TO THE BIPOLAR COLD WAR AND THE
           EMERGENCE OF MULTIPLE IF NOT YET SUPER, AT LEAST MAJOR POWERS,

           THIS NECESSITATES ANOTHER THOROUGH GOING REVIEW AND EVALUATION
           OF WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE SHOULD BE HEADED. IF ONE HAS BEEN
           READING THE FOREIGN POLICY JOURNALS AND WHITE PAPERS DURING THE
           LAST FEW YEARS, ONE FINDS A VIGOROUS AND THOUGHTFUL DEBATE
           UNDERWAY ON JUST SUCH QUESTIONS. I'D LIKE TO TAKE JUST A FEW
           MINUTES TO PROVIDE THE SENATE WITH A SMALL BIT OF THE FLAVOR OF
           THIS DIALOGUE AMONG AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY COMMENTATORS. IN
           1995 AN ARTICLE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS MAG SDIN BY RICHARD HAUST OF
           THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION PROVIDED I THINK A USEFUL START G#

           POINT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION BY SEPARATING THE DEBATE ON
           AMERICA'S GLOBAL ROLE IO TWO PARTS. THE PRIORITIES OR ENDS OF
           AMERICAN POLICY OR AND APPROACHES AVAILABLE TO ACHIEVE THOSE
           ENDS. AS POSSIBLE PRIORITIES, HE LISTS WILSONAN IDEALISM WITH
           HIS EMPHASIS ON PROMOTION OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES. CON --

           ENONUMUNISM AS THE NAME SUGGESTS. REALISM AS SOVEN ASSOCIATED
           WITH BALANCE OF POWER AND INTERNATIONAL EQUILIBRIUM AND
           HUMANITARIAN WHICH FOCUSES ON ALLEVIATING THE PLIGHT OF
           INDIVIDUALS AND MINIMALISM WHICH COULD BE THOUGHT OF AS
           NEO-ISOLATIONISM BUT ACCEPTS THE NEED FOR LIMITED U.S.
           ENGAGEMENT IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS. ON THE SIDES OF MEANS, HAUST
           LISTS UNILATERALISM WITH THE LARGELY UNFETTERED FREEDOM OF
           ACTION IN PURSUIT OF ITS GOALS. NEO-INTERNATIONALISM OR
           ASSERTIVE MULTILATERALISM WHICH ALLOWS MULTILATERAL

           ORGANIZATIONS AND APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING
           AND REGIONALISM WHICH HE DEFINES AS U.S. LEADERSHIP WITHIN
           ALLIANCES AND COALITIONS. WRITING IN THE SPRING 1996 ISSUE OF
           STRATEGIC REVIEW NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL PROFESSOR OF
           SECURITY AFFAIRS EDWARD OLSON PRESENTED A VIEW WHICH MIGHT BE
           TERMED AS MINIMALISM WHEN HE ADVOCATED RETURN TO OUR PREWORLD
           WAR II APPROACH WHICH HE CHARACTERIZED AS ONE OF ABSTENTION,
           BENIGN NEGLECT AND NONINTERVENTIONISM WITHIN A POLICY OF HIGHLY

           SELECTIVE ENGAGEMENT. PROFESSOR OLSON DISTINGUISHED HIS
           PROPOSED POLICY OF DISENGAGEMENT AND NONINTERVENTION WHICH
           WOULD BE MARKED BY LESS MILITARY INTERVENTION, LESS FOREIGN AID
           AND FEWER INTERNATIONAL ENTANGLEMENTS. HE DISTINGUISHED THAT
           FROM ISOLATIONISM BECAUSE HIS APPROACH WOULD ALLOW THE U.S.
           STRATEGIC INDEPENDENCE TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF INDEPENDENT OF
           OTHER COUNTRIES OR MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS WHEN AND HOW TO
           ENGAGE ABROAD. WELL, DIRECTLY OPPOSITE TO THAT AND THAT

           WILSONIAN IDEALISM AND A LARGELY UNILATERAL -- IS A WILSONIAN
           IDEALISM STRATEGY EMPLOYING A LARGELY UNILATERAL APPROACH.
           ARTICLE BY WILLIAM CRYSTAL AND ROBERT KAGAN USED A SUMMER 1996
           EDITION OF "FOREIGN AFFAIRS" TO ARGUE FOR A U.S. ROLE OF
           BENEVOLENT GLOBAL HEGEMONY IN SAYING AMERICAN PRINCIPLES AROUND
           THE WORLD CAN BE SUSTAINED ONLY BILL CONTINUING EXERTION OF
           AMERICAN INFLUENCE INCLUDING FOREIGN AID AND WHEN NECESSARY
           MILITARY INTERVENTION. THERE IS ANOTHER VIEW. IN HIS 1994 BOOK

           ENTITLED "DIPLOMACY," HENRY KISSINGER PROVIDES A CONTEMPORARY
           UPDATED VERSION OF THE REALIST BALANCE OF POWER VIEW. AMERICA'S
           DOMINANT TASK IS TO STRIKE A BALANCE, HE SAYS, BETWEEN THE TWIN
           MPTATIONS INHERENT IN ITS EXCEPTIONALISM, THE NOTION THAT
           AMERICA MUST REMEDY EVERY WRONG AND STABLIZE EVERY DISLOCATION
           AND THE LATENT INSTINCT WITHDRAWN INTO ITSELF, A COUNTRY WITH
           AMERICA'S IDEALISTIC TRADITION CANNOT BASE ITS POLICY ON THE
           BALANCE OF POWER AS THE SOLE CRITERION FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER,
           BUT IT MUST LEARN THAT EQUILIBRIUM IS A FUNDAMENTAL

           PRECONDITION FOR THE PURSUIT OF ITS HISTORIC GOALS." A QUOTE
           THAT COMES TO MIND TO ME IS A QUOTE BY PRESIDENT KENNEDY THAT
           AMERICA -- THAT THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY AN AMERICAN SOLUTION
           FOR EVERY PROBLEM IN THE WORLD. AND I THINK THAT IS A REALISTIC
           VIEW. FORMER CONGRESSMAN STEVEN SEW LARS ESPOUSED THE
           HUMANITARIANISM GOAL. IN THE WINTER 2000 EDITION OF "BLUE
           PRINT" MAGAZINE. SOME HE SAID OF COURSE WILL OBJECT TO
           HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AS A VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF

           SOVEREIGNTY WHICH PRECLUDES MILITARY INTERFERENCE. YET IT'S
           CLEAR TODAY THAT THE NONINTERFERENCE DOCTRINE NO LONGER TRUMPS
           OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. HE SAID THIS WAS OBVIOUS WHEN THE U.N.
           SANCTIONED INTERVENTIONS DURING THE 1990'S IN NORTHERN IRAQ,
           SOMALIA AND HAITI WHERE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY OR GENOCIDE ARE
           INVOLVED THE DOCTRINE OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS ACCEPTED
           AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR VIOLATING THE OTHERWISE INVOLUBLE

           BORDERS OF THE SOVEREIGN STATE. A VARIANT IS CONTAINED IN
           HUNTINGTON'S WORK, "THE CLASH
           
           OF CIVILIZATION: REMARKING THE WORLD ORDER." IN THE AFTERMATH,
           HE SAYS, OF THE COLD WAR, THE UNITED STATES BECAME CONSUMED
           WITH MASSIVE DEBATES OVER THE PROPER COURSE OF AMERICAN FOREIGN
           POLICY. IN THIS ERA, HOWEVER, THE U.S. CAN NEITHER DOMINATE NOR
           ESCAPE THE WORLD. NEITHER INTERNATIONALISM NOR ISOLATIONISM,

           NEITHER MULTILATERALISM NOR UNILATERALISM WOULD BEST SERVE ITS
           INTEREST. THOSE WILL BESS BE ADVANCED BY ESCHEWING THESE
           STREAMS AND INSTEAD GETTING IN CLOSE COOPERATION WITH ITS
           EUROPEAN PARTNERS TO PROTECT THE VALUES OF THE UNIQUE
           CIVILIZATION THEY SHARE. THESE ARE JUST A FEW, MR. PRESIDENT,
           OF THE MANY THINK PIECES WHICH HAVE BEEN COMING OUT OF THE
           AMERICAN FOREIGN COMMUNITY SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR OVER
           THE LAST NINE OR TEN YEARS. EVEN THIS BRIEF GLIMPSE PROVIDES A

           WIDE DIVERGENCE IN EXPERT OPINIONS ON THE PREFERRED PRIORITIES
           AND APPROACHES FOR POST-COLD WAR U.S. GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT. TO
           FURTHER EVALUATE THE KUFRNT DEBATE AMONG INDIVIDUALS WITH
           STRONGLY HEAD VIEWS ON WHERE WE SHOULD BE HEADED I ASKED THE
           OUTSTANDING CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE TO PROVIDE ME WITH A
           REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON U.S. GLOBAL ROLE OPTIONS. AND I ASK
           NOW ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THIS C.R.S. DOCUMENT BE ENTERED
           -- INSERTED AT THIS POINT INTO THE RECORD.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. CLELAND: JAMES LINDSEY OF THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, I
           THINK, WELL SUMMED UP WHERE WE IN CONGRESS ARE TODAY IN THIS
           GREAT DEBATE ON AMERICA'S PROPER ROLE IN THE WORLD IN THE
           WINTER 2000 BROOKINGS REVIEW WHERE HE WROTE "MUCH LIKE FRIENDS
           WHO AGREE TO DIE BUT CAN'T AGREE ON A RESTAURANT, FOREIGN
           POLICY ELITES AGREE THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD DO SOMETHING,
           JUST NOT WHAT. CONGRESS NATURALLY REFLECTS THIS, WHICH MAKES IT
           DIFFICULT FOR THE INSTITUTION TO FUNCTION. DIVIDED BY CHAMBER,

           PARTY, IDEOLOGY, REGION, COMMITTEE AND GENERATION, CONGRESS
           LISTS TOWARDS PARALYSIS WHENEVER A MODICUM OF AGREEMENT AND A
           SENSE OF PROPORTION ARE ABSENT." MR. PRESIDENT, THAT IS EXACTLY
           WHAT THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM KANSAS AND I ARE TRYING TO
           PROGRAM INTO THIS DISCUSSION. WE ARE TRYING TO PROGRAM A
           MODICUM OF AGREEMENT AND A SENSE OF PROPORTION. IN A NUTSHELL,
           ATTEMPTING TO OVERCOME THIS DICENSUS AND PARALYSIS. I'D LIKE AT

           THIS POINT TO YIELD AGAIN TO THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM
           KANSAS FOR HIS ADDITIONAL REMARKS. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
           

           MR. ROBERTS: I THANK THE SENATOR FOR YIELDING. MR. PRESIDENT,
           SENATOR CLELAND HAS VERY EFFECTIVELY OUTLINED THE EVOLUTION OF
           OUR NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY FROM WASHINGTON AND ADAMS, WHO WERE
           BOTH VERY CHERRY AT FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT AND ALLIANCES TO THE
           MONROE DOCTRINE TO THE IDEALISM OF WOODROW WILSON AND ALL OF
           THE SO-CALLED "ISMS." WE HAVE REALISM, HUMANITARIAN, ECONISM,

           REGIONALISM, ISOLATIONISM WITH INTERVENTION AND NONINTERVENTION
           THAT ARE TOWSED IN. I WOULD SAY TO MY DEAR FRIEND AND
           COLLEAGUE, THAT IS QUITE A FOREIGN POLICY TOSSED SALAD. BUT THE
           POINT IS THE DISCUSSION AND DEFINITION MUST PREFACE CLARITY,
           PURPOSE AND CONSENSUS. AND THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM
           GEORGIA HAS DONE JUST THAT THAT, AND I WILL PREDICT -- AS A
           MATTER OF FACT, I HAVE SNEAKED A LOOK AT HIS CONCLUSION, AND HE
           HAS COME UP WITH A NEW CONCEPT,
{END: 2000/02/24 TIME: 14-45 , Thu.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}