Testimony at Senate Confirmation Hearing (Deputy Secretary of State-designate cites U.S. world role)

Testimony at Senate Confirmation Hearing (Deputy Secretary of State-designate cites U.S. world role)

Mr. Chairman, Senator Biden, Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you today in connection with my nomination by President Bush to the position of Deputy Secretary of State. My plan, Mr. Chairman, is to adhere to a practice I established in years past when appearing before committees of the Senate and the House: to make the briefest of statements and then to respond to the Committee's questions.

Mr. Chairman, prudence dictated that the greatest part of the homework I needed to accomplish prior to meeting with you and your colleagues consisted in carefully reviewing your confirmation hearing with the then Secretary of State - Designate. For me to attempt to add to or subtract from what Secretary Powell said would be presumptuous, gratuitous and, if I may be frank, dangerous. To the extent that I would revisit matters of substance already addressed by the Secretary, I would do so carefully and only in response to the Committee's questions.

Indeed, in reading the confirmation hearing transcript I am struck by the extraordinarily high quality of the exchange, and reminded that our legislative branch plays a central role in the formulation of, American foreign policy. Our system of government is such that foreign policy, like all aspects of public policy, is based ultimately on the consent of the governed. It is this basic tenet of American constitutionalism that renders the line between foreign and domestic policy blurred in theory and invisible in practice.

To acknowledge and uphold the role of Congress in foreign affairs is not, I hope, seen as either ingratiating or condescending on my part. Rather it is to acknowledge and uphold a political fact of life which executive branch officials ignore at their peril. Even as we undertake to do the will of the Commander-in-Chief and to support his leadership role in the conduct of foreign affairs, the success or failure of our efforts will in large measure depend upon our willingness to consult with the Congress and to draw upon the political expertise and experience resident on this end of Pennsylvania Avenue. In my own experience serving in the Departments of Defense and State I have regarded consultations on Capitol Hill not as penance, or a chore, or a required cost of doing business. Rather I have found that the 'business' itself is not sustainable absent the counsel of people who are, by definition, the most successful practitioners of politics in our political system.

Those Members who have known me over the years know that a pledge on my part to make close Congressional consultation a hallmark of Department of State operations is not an empty gesture. I have, for better or worse, a track record. It is a record of service that includes running the Department of Defense's foreign policy apparatus as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs from 1983 to 1989. It includes as well over three years of trouble-shooting service in the Department of State, mediating a Middle Eastern water dispute, closing out our military bases presence in the Philippines, and establishing U.S. humanitarian and technical assistance programs aimed at the states emerging from the imploded Soviet Union. In all of these endeavors consultations with the Congress were essential, not only in terms of framing policy options, but in terms of drawing upon some impressive institutional wisdom. I cannot imagine that the consultation habit is one I would drop or one that the Secretary of State would allow me to drop.

I do not come before you in the guise of political philosopher or ideologist. I do not claim to possess a notional framework for the pursuit of national interests in the post-Cold War world. To the extent that I may be able to make a positive impact on U.S. foreign policy, my personal emphasis will be on how we do our business.

I am very much a "people person." What this means, in a practical sense --provided you confirm me as Deputy Secretary of State -- is that our diplomats will be asked to relate to their counterparts very intensively on a person-to- person basis. Too often we think of 'diplomacy' as a sort of specialized language mastered by the keepers of a special code, one featuring indirection and ambiguity. I think of diplomacy as the building of relationships based on trust; relationships to be drawn upon by professionals in the course of securing certain results. Our diplomats need to think politically in order to report accurately; they need to act politically in order to get results. Thinking and acting politically means putting people first. As Socrates once commented: "Politics? Politics? All of life is 'politics'." Whether in Washington or abroad the building of solid relationships with counterparts is essential to achieving diplomatic objectives.

Indeed, I believe that many of the theoretical debates over the relative merits of unilateralism, multilateralism and the like become truly relevant only when we have lost the ability to attract supporters to a course of action desired by the U.S. The coalition built a decade ago to free Kuwait did not materialize out of thin air. It was built by a President and by Secretaries of State and Defense who were able to draw upon relationships of trust which had been planted deeply and tended carefully. If we view foreign policy as an episodic endeavor to be engaged in only during times of crisis or convenience we shall find unilateralism to be a fait accompli instead of an option. Close and constant consultation with allies is not optional. It is the precondition for sustaining American leadership.

If we expect our diplomats to get out from behind their desks and build relationships with counterparts, we owe them leadership by example and sound management practices. I can assure you that I will not preach sermons about consulting with the Congress and engaging with counterparts only to stay holed-up on the seventh floor of the State Department. In terms of management, I can only echo the Secretary's promise that we will be back seeking from you the resources our people need to get the job done right. Yet I have another management concern that I would like to broach, one that pertains to the structure of the Department itself.

I cannot imagine what it must be like to serve in an American embassy and to be on the receiving end of instructions from a Department as loosely organized as State. I will tell you quite frankly that I do not like single-issue bureaus. No matter the organization as it exists today, I will expect, for example, the Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs to be the single focal point in the Department for policy matters relating to Japan, China and the rest of Asia. Although arms control, democracy, education and culture, nonproliferation and so forth are important issues, they make policy sense only within the context of a total package. I will be looking to the regional bureaus to integrate all of the key issues and to interact with the embassies. While I will insist that the Department work closely with this Committee and with other relevant committees of Congress on matters of substantive policy, I would ask that the Congress make every effort to refrain from giving us excessive 'rudder direction' in the organization of the Department itself.

Mr. Chairman, foreign policy is not an exotic rite practiced by an ordained priesthood. The men and women of the Department of State are our fellow citizens, serving us under conditions that are sometimes dangerous and often abysmal. We are privileged to have within the ranks of the Foreign and Civil Services some extraordinarily brilliant and incredibly courageous individuals. They and their families will be tested in ways we can scarcely imagine. They deserve our support, our appreciation and, above all, our leadership. All of the expertise resident in the Department of State avails us little if we fail to lead. If there is one thing I would like to leave to this Department if you accord me the privilege of serving it would be an emerging culture in which loyalty flows both ways, not just from the bottom-up. Although there may be some who might question or decry the presence of a retired Army General and former Naval officer in the top two positions of the Department of State, I seriously doubt that there is a subset of leadership uniquely applicable to Foggy Bottom. If the principles of leadership learned at the U.S. Naval Academy and the practice of leadership in Vietnam, the Pentagon and the private sector prove insufficient to the task at hand, the fault will not, I am certain, reside in my failure to pursue a career in the Foreign Service of the U.S.

Leadership as I understand it is heavy on duty and light on prerogative. To provide leadership to the people of the Department of State requires a focus on service, not privilege. So it is, in my view, in the exercise of American leadership in the world. To the extent that our behavior reflects arrogance and a heightened sense of position, our claim to leadership will become, in spite of our military prowess, the thinnest of pretensions. To the extent that our behavior reflects a sense of duty, informed and supported by allies and friends around the globe, American leadership will be the central reality of the international system for as far as the eye can see. Although I cannot articulate for you a philosophical framework describing this system and the precise interaction of the United States with all of its facets, I can pledge to you that I will, with your support and your counsel, work tirelessly to make American leadership the constant in our changing universe.