AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE WORLD
NATO military action in Yugoslavia has, so far, raised more questions than it has answered. We should confront these questions in a forthright manner, and use the answers to develop a set of principles and guidelines for America's role in the world with just one superpower. The following are a few questions that I've been considering:
Where and when should the United States intervene militarily?
First, when should we not intervene? Well, I think we should avoid getting involved in someone else's civil war.
When should we be ready to fight? Obviously, if the United States is attacked, as in World War II, we should use military force to repel the attack and defeat the enemy.
The United States should also use military force to protect American lives or American property. This is a principle that goes back as far as Thomas Jefferson's use of the navy to protect merchant ships from the Barbary Coast pirates. More recently, President Reagan sent troops to the island of Grenada to evacuate American students caught in a bloody civil war.
I believe the United States should also be prepared to use military force to defend vital national security interests.
What is a vital national security interest?
I define a vital national security interest as one whose loss would threaten our country or our freedom.
That is why I also am concerned about our operation in Yugoslavia. There is no doubt that President Slobodan Milosevic is a ruthless leader. But not even President Clinton has said he believes Milosevic is in danger of dominating all of Europe in such a way as to harm our vital interests. Indeed, Europe has never been more prosperous, more democratic or free.
I am concerned that our military actions in Yugoslavia could actually harm our national interests because the operation has encouraged hard-line nationalists in Russia who were already skeptical of the thaw in U.S.-Russian relationship.
What is the proper U.S. role in places such as the Balkans?
We have always been trusted as a mediator and a diplomatic broker in hot spots around the globe, and we should try to reclaim that role in the Balkans. Taking sides in civil and ethnic conflicts diminishes our capacity to act as an honest and respected broker.
My preference is for the United States to take the lead in negotiating a solution that goes beyond Kosovo and gives self-determination greater significance throughout the region. This could lead to the formation of majority Albanian, Serbian, Croatian and secular Muslim states in which ethnic and religious division would be much less a factor than they are today. Inevitably, there would be regions where clean divisions along such lines are not possible. International peacekeepers, from NATO and Russia, could guarantee free passage through such regions. This is the type of low-risk, limited-force peacekeeping mission that the American people could support.
***
For now, the United States is involved in a military conflict and we owe our military troops our support and prayers. At the same time, though, elected officials owe the public clearly defined policies with achievable objectives.
What do you think America's role in the post-Cold War world should be? I would be interested to learn of your opinions on this very basic question.
You can write me at:
Capitol Comment
c/o Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
May 19, 1999