Reshaping U.S. foreign policy

By James A. Baker III

NEW YORK: When the 104th Congress convenes in January, Republicans will control the foreign policy committees of both houses for the first time in 40 years.

The new Republicans majorities of the House and Senate will have it within their power to help shape an American foreign policy equal to the challenges not just of the 1990s, but of the 21st century.

If the GOP 104th Congress is to succeed in this task, members should rededicate themselves to the Republican tradition of staunch internationalism. Above all, they should resist the siren song of isolationism, stronger today than at any time since World War II. They should reach out to the Clinton administration in the spirit of bipartisanship that has been the linchpin of effective American foreign policy since the Truman administration. And, finally, they must remember and respect the unique role of the president of the United States in foreign affairs.

The last is a crucial point. The president, whatever his party, remains the commander-in-chief of the nation's armed forces; the conduct of foreign policy continues to be both his constitutional prerogative and duty. No purpose is served by congressional efforts, whether Democratic or Republican, to micromanage foreign policy.

Instead, Congress should focus on sweeping reform of foreign policy processes and constructive oversight of substantive foreign policy issues. Abolish AID and ACDA. The Agency for International Development (AID) and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) have outlived their usefulness.

There were two rationales for the creation of AID in the early 1960s. The first was a strategic imperative of checking communist aggression around the globe. The second was a theory of economic development based on large government capital projects. With the end of the Cold War, the strategic rationale is plainly obsolete; the economic one has been similarly superseded by a new development model stressing the importance of entrepreneurship.

American foreign assistance should reflect these new realities. Aid should be channeled, where possible, through the private sector and non-governmental organizations. The export of American goods, services, and technology should be a top priority, not just in rhetoric, but in reality.

Funding for AID's government-to-government projects should be shifted in large part to programs administered by the Trade Development Administration (TDA), the Export Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).

Obviously, some AID functions and programs -- for example, humanitarian assistance -- will need to be continued. But these can be efficiently folded into either the Department of Defense or the State Department.

ACDA, like AID, is an institution whose time has passed. The protracted U.S.-Soviet negotiations for which it was created no longer exist. ACDA can be even more easily abolished than AID by simply shifting its policy functions to the Department of State and most of its technical programs to the On-Site Inspection Agency.

In the mid-term elections, the American people voted for smaller, leaner government; abolishing ACDA and AID are just part of this broader effort to reduce and reengineer the federal bureaucracy. *Streamlining needed:

As the leadership of the new Republican Congress moves forward with internal reform, they should not neglect foreign policy. Oversight should be streamlined.

Consideration should be given, for instance, to regular joint sessions of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee; at a minimum, Congress should consolidate the various subcommittees that currently - and confusingly - oversee the foreign affairs budget.

Just as importantly, the 104th Congress should also seek to institutionalize consultation between the executive and legislative branches. This should include regular informal meetings between the secretary of state and key committee chairs and members. As part of this effort to build trust between the Hill and the White House, the new Congress should repeal the Vietnam-era War Powers Resolution - a piece of legislation that is unconstitutional, obsolete, and a lingering source of dispute between the president and Congress. *More open trade:

Expanding international trade and investment is now a precondition to sustained economic growth. Here, the outgoing Congress has a record of which it can be proud.

Indeed, it is likely that history will judge the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as the crowning accomplishments of the 103rd Congress; not coincidentally, they were the result of close executive-legislative cooperation.

The 104th Congress must urge the Clinton administration to seek fast-track authority for further negotiations aimed at opening foreign markets to American goods and investment. Chile is the likeliest first candidate. But there are others, not just in Latin America but also among the "Tigers" of the Far East and those countries of Central Europe, like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which are furthest along the road to political and economic reform. For the new Republican Congress, NAFTA and GATT should mark a beginning, not an end. *Aid to Russia:

Assistance to Russia and other states of the former Soviet Bloc remains a key element of American foreign policy. Since Congress passed the Bush administration's Freedom Support Act, assistance for economic and political reform in the former Soviet Union has enjoyed strong support on both sides of the aisle.

Today, reform and American support for it remain as crucial as ever. The 104th Congress should therefore continue American financial and technical support for reform in Russia and elsewhere in the former Soviet bloc.

Obviously, foreign aid should never be given carte blanche. Russia's behavior, both toward the "Near Abroad" and in terms of its adherence to international nonproliferation agreements, must loom large in determining aid levels.

But it is also important that Congress retain perspective on developments within the former Soviet Union. Russia is not a client state of the United States; our interests will sometimes differ, even as they do with our longtime allies. It is important, however, to keep our eye on the prize: the integration into the international community of a democratic, stable and responsible Russia - the only country in the world still able to destroy the United States. *Middle East:

From Camp David through the Madrid peace conference to the present, the United States has been deeply engaged in the search for peace in the Middle East. That role has enjoyed broad and sustained bipartisan congressional support.

Today we are closer than ever to the achievement of a long- term American foreign policy objective: a just and comprehensive settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

Serious obstacles continue to stand in the way. The enemies of Middle East peace remain powerful. Arab rejectionists have resorted to terrorism to thwart the peace process. There are Israelis, too, who prefer territory to peace. Had these extremists had their way earlier, there would have been no Israeli-PLO agreement, and no peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. This makes America's role as catalyst for progress all the more important.

Especially critical will be a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. It is likely that the parties will seek American security assurances as part of any settlement. Such assurances might well include a request for American participation in a multilateral monitoring or peacekeeping force on the Golan Heights.

The Clinton administration should respond positively to such a request; the 104th Congress should support it. *Haiti:

The ill-conceived American military intervention in Haiti was a source of contention between the outgoing Congress and the Clinton administration on foreign policy. Congress is already on record as calling for the earliest possible withdrawal of American forces.

The 104th Congress should continue to press the administration to present an exit strategy for the prompt termination of our military involvement. This is the only way Congress can hold the administration to its word and ensure it is accountable for any effort to shift our mission in Haiti from restoring a duly elected president to power to open-ended "nation-building". *North Korea:

By tacitly acknowledging Pyongyang as a nuclear power, the Clinton administration's agreement with North Korea has increased, not decreased, the potential for instability on the Korean Peninsula. Moreover, the agreement sends a green light to other would-be nuclear proliferators in Teheran, Tripoli and Baghdad.

This makes it imperative that the new Republican Congress direct and fund the development of antiballistic missile systems designed to protect American forces and, indeed, the American mainland from what could be a deadly missile attack. Of course, this needs to be undertaken as part of a broader effort to restore defense readiness and ensure the muscle is not cut out of America's military. *NATO expansion:

Since the end of the Cold War, the countries of Central Europe have made phenomenal progress toward democracy and free markets. The security of Central Europe remains uncertain, however, given the potential of instability to its east.

Under the Clinton administration's "Partnership for Peace" proposal, the United States is already committed to an eventual expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The 104th Congress should press the administration to move forward with NATO expansion now.

Specifically, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic should be offered full NATO membership. By doing so, the United States and its NATO allies can both bolster reform in Central Europe and enhance security for the continent as a whole.

On Nov. 8, 1994, American voters cast their ballots for sweeping change. It's now up to the new Republican majorities of the House and Senate to deliver constructive change in foreign affairs no less than domestic policy.

James A. Baker is a former U.S. secretary of state

Window: Expanding international trade and investment is now a precondition to sustained economic growth.