Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

Another Gift to China?

Wall Street Journal, 07 July 1998

Bill Clinton certainly proved to be a grateful guest. First the President dangerously altered the
U.S. position on the relationship between mainland China and Taiwan by moving closer to China’s
position on unification. Then in another act of troublesome expediency, he moved toward
acceptance of China’s position on entry to the World Trade Organization. Maybe the Chinese will
invite him back for Christmas.

On the WTO, there is little disagreement in principle. Certainly, this huge country should
become
part of the world trading order. Partly through joint ventures with Western companies, Chinese
enterprises have become important exporters. As a nation China has racked up current-account
surpluses that have put nearly $150 billion in hard currency reserves in the government’s hands.
Also, China’s entry presumably would clear the way for Taiwan, which qualified for membership
years ago.

But the key question about China’s entry is: On whose terms?

China wants to enter the trade organization as an emerging economy, a status that would
allow a
longer grace period for lowering barriers to free trade and investment. Developing economies, for
example, have a whole decade to cut the value of their export subsidies by 24% and the volume of
subsidized exports by 14%. For developed economies the figures are 36% and 21%, and the time
frame is six years. The WTO, backed by the U.S., has so far refused to grant China such a
provision.

And for good reason. Emerging-economy status, itself of doubtful validity, is nonetheless
reserved
for countries of negligible economic impact. China’s economy is the world’s seventh largest,
bigger than Canada’s and Russia’s, with a GDP climbing toward the trillion-dollar level. Making
allowances for a country of this size discredits a trading system that has to be seen as fair and
impartial in applying international rules.

Bill Clinton is far too casual toward important legal principles. He seemed to accept China’s
position when, during his Shanghai radio call-in he conceded that “China is still an emerging
economy” that deserved a longer period of adjustment than richer countries. Then, to Chinese
claims that to lower barriers would threaten their economy at a critical juncture, the President
responded: “They have big chunks of unemployment for which they have to create big chunks of
employment …. They want to have a timing for WTO membership that will permit them to
continue to absorb into the work force people who are displaced from the state industries.”

Mr. Clinton wouldn’t say something like that if he actually believed in or understood how
markets
work. The truth is that if China entered the WTO under the stricter terms, its people would
benefit, not suffer. If big international investors were genuinely free to develop markets in China,
they would provide the Chinese with a wider range of products and services, and make new and
better jobs for that huge, willing labor pool. Instead, an American President defends
protectionism.

Before leaving Hong Kong, Mr. Clinton told a press conference he was going home with
“ideas”
on how to settle the deadlock over China’s entry to the world trading body. Perhaps by the time
Congress and the rest of the world are made privy to those ideas, we’ll find that his politicking in
China didn’t represent a significant change after all in the U.S. position. But on the past week’s
evidence, Mr. Clinton appears more than willing to bend the rules in key matters of substance. It’s
a lot to give away in return for the smiles that greeted him in Beijing.

Clinton Legacy Watch # 28: ‘Peace In Our Time’ With China

(Washington, D.C.): Sixty years ago in September, the leader of the free world returned from
a
visit to the homeland of a potential adversary. Neville Chamberlain gushed about his ability to
work with Adolph Hitler. He promised his people “peace in our time.” And in a turn of phrase
more important for its metaphorical import than its literal meaning, he urged those who
enthusiastically welcomed him back from his Munich meeting with the Fuhrer to “go home and
get a nice quiet sleep.” History may well treat Bill Clinton’s 1998 trip to Communist
China
with the same contempt as is now reserved for Prime Minister Chamberlain’s catastrophic
diplomatic mission to the Third Reich in 1938.

A Bill of Particulars

While there are, to be sure, differences — most notably, the President’s televised, if tempered,
comments about the benefits of democracy — consider a few of the eerie parallels:

  • Hyping Sitzagreements: The most palpable similarity is the
    placebo agreement reached by
    the President and his hosts to de-target ballistic missiles aimed at each others’ nations. As was
    true of Hitler’s promise at Munich to confine himself to gobbling up Czechoslovakia’s
    Sudetenland, this commitment is of no strategic value. We cannot verify that the Chinese have
    stopped pointing at us the thirteen-or-so ICBMs which U.S. intelligence believes are targeted
    against American cities. Even if they were actually to do so, within a few seconds — or, at
    most, a few minutes — the original coordinates could be re-entered.

    • The effect of this accord, however, will — like the deal with Hitler that Chamberlain
    represented as “peace for our time” — be to encourage Western publics to “get a nice
    quiet sleep,” by discounting an emerging danger.(1) Like
    their British counterparts two
    generations before, Americans today want desperately to believe that conflict can be
    avoided with Communist China. Nothing makes the people of democracies happier
    than the soporific assurances of their leaders that no threats exist. They understandably
    welcome representations to the effect that sacrifice will not be needed to transform a
    potential foe into a reliable “strategic partner.” Unfortunately, this is rarely the case
    and does not seem to be so in this instance.

  • Abandoning a Fellow Democracy: In China, President Clinton effectively
    abandoned
    Taiwan in much the same way that Chamberlain in Germany turned his back on democratic
    Czechoslovakia. While experts debate whether the formulation he used went beyond the
    rhetoric of appeasement of Beijing dating back to the 1972 Shanghai Communique, the
    practical effect was unmistakable: The United States will support the hegemonism of the
    Communists on the mainland over the aspirations for self-determination of the people of
    Taiwan.

    • The Clinton Administration is now in the absurd, not to say strategically inane, position
    of signaling its willingness to see an entity without appreciable territory or resources
    become a Palestinian state, despite the considerable threat such an entity will
    pose to
    a valued democratic ally, Israel. At the same time, the Administration is denying
    Taiwan — a democratic nation in all but name, which enjoys both territory and
    considerable resources     (indeed, it has some of the largest hard currency reserves of
    any country in the world) — the right to be recognized as an independent sovereign
    state, in deference to the largest despotism on the planet.

  • Legitimating a Despot: The President went to considerable lengths to
    legitimate Jiang
    Zemin, in much the same way as the Prime Minister in 1938 felt obliged to invest in Hitler a
    stature that went beyond the requirements of diplomatic politesse. One could almost hear
    echoes of Chamberlain’s enthusiasm for the man who was modernizing Germany while acting
    as his partner in avoiding war as Mr. Clinton gushed that Jiang is “imaginative,” “an
    extraordinary intellect,” a man of “very high energy” and the “right leadership at the right time”
    for China.

  • Undermining Alliance Relationships: In a manner reminiscent of
    Chamberlain’s disregard
    for his French allies in the run-up to Munich, President Clinton has exacerbated the strategic
    problem posed by China’s rising influence in Asia through his stiff-arming of America’s
    regional allies: Japan, South Korea and the Philippines — to say nothing of Taiwan. Madeleine
    Albright’s banal post-facto assurances that U.S.-PRC relations will not be improved at the
    latters’ expense are unconvincing. In any event, they are unlikely to dissuade American friends
    in the Pacific Rim from seeking to reach their own accommodations with the ascendant
    dictatorial power. If history is any guide, and it generally is, such accommodations will only
    serve to make conflict more likely.

  • Buying Time for the Dictators: Finally, with his equivalent of the “Good
    Housekeeping Seal
    of Approval” on Communist China, Mr. Clinton has (like Chamberlain before him) bought time
    for a potentially fatal disease to metastasize. According to the President, there is no need to
    rethink the wisdom of transferring U.S. and other Western dual-use technology to
    China’s military    ; we need not worry about the policy of allowing the People’s
    Liberation
    Army access to America’s capital markets     (where it is raising inexpensive, undisciplined
    funds for its ambitious modernization program); and since he believes the biggest threat we
    face from the PRC is an environmental one, we can safely allow the further “hollowing
    out”
    of our own military    (2) — even as theirs becomes
    better able to conduct devastating, if
    “asymmetric,” attacks against U.S. forces and infrastructure. The contrary is true in each
    case.

The Bottom Line

In short, chances are that President Clinton’s trip will be seen historically for what it was: an
exercise in appeasement. Jiang Zemin may be no Hitler (any more than he is a visionary
democratizer), but the government he leads has the potential to be every bit as dangerous a
problem for the Western democracies as was the Third Reich, if not considerably more so.

Should this potential be actualized, Mr. Clinton’s conduct — both while paying court abroad
as
well as while policy-making at home — is likely to be held substantially responsible for the tragedy
to come, in much the same way as his British counterpart’s behavior continues to be six decades
after the fact.

– 30 –

1. For more on President Clinton’s deliberate effort to mislead the
American people about the
missile threat, see the op.ed. article by J. Michael Waller published in today’s
Washington Times entitled “No nukes pointed this way? Think again.”

2. The splendid “Inside the Ring” column in today’s Washington
Times reports that a powerful
briefing entitled “Averting the Defense Train Wreck” prepared by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies’ Dan Gouré and Jeffrey Ranney is making the rounds of Pentagon
leaders to
generally favorable reviews. This study adds further urgency to the warning issued to President
Clinton in a private letter sent last week by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. According to
news reports, Sen. Lott offered a “flat-out condemnation” of the current state of the U.S. military.
See in this connection Clinton Legacy Watch # 22: More Evidence of a Hollow
Military (No.
98-D 62, 7 April 1998) and Clinton Legacy Watch # 17: Dangers of a ‘Hollow
Military’ (No.
98-D 23, 5 February 1998).

Clinton Legacy Watch # 27: A Counterculture Assault On The U.S. Military and The National Sovereignty It Safeguards

A Case in Point: Daryl Jones’ Nomination to Head the Air Force

(Washington, D.C.): There is a singularly troubling aspect of the Clinton Administration’s
mismanagement of the defense and foreign policy portfolios: The prospect that damage
is
being done, apparently purposefully, to the institutions and personnel charged with
safeguarding the Nation’s security — at least some of it damage that will be exceedingly
difficult to undo.

A Bill of Particulars

Examples abound of what might best be described as a counterculture assault on the U.S.
military
and the American sovereignty it protects. Consider the following:

  • ‘Hollowing Out the Military’: The military is being systematically
    “hollowed out,” thanks to
    the combined effects of its resources being reduced year after year even as the demand for its
    services grow inexorably. Never mind that this use is largely for peacekeeping, humanitarian
    functions, the extraction of American nationals from foreign crises or other non-combat
    missions. These tasks still wear out equipment and units tasked with performing
    them.
    It will take many years and immense investment to bring the U.S. armed forces back up to the
    levels of readiness and combat capability they enjoyed when Bill Clinton assumed the
    presidency.(1)

  • High Cost Technology Insecurity Policies: The Clinton Administration is
    studiously
    ignoring the high costs — in terms of dollars and, possibly, in terms of lives —
    associated with
    permitting the wholesale transfer of “dual-use” technology relevant to military activities
    to potential adversaries.    (2) Worse yet, its
    dismantling of the domestic bureaucratic
    arrangements and, in particular, the multilateral export control system governing such
    technologies means that it will be exceedingly hard, if not impossible, to recreate effective
    regimes for stanching this potentially lethal hemorrhage.

  • Eroding U.S. Sovereignty: Against the possibility that the United States
    might somehow
    retain the means with which to project power effectively, the Administration is
    subordinating the Nation’s freedom of action to myriad international arrangements.
    These include: insisting on securing UN Security Council or other multilateral blessing prior to
    U.S. use of force(3); agreeing to the Kyoto Climate Change
    Protocol which explicitly subjects
    any unilaterally mounted military operation or training activity to greenhouse gas emission
    restrictions(4); embracing a Law of the Sea treaty that will
    imperil, not protect, American
    interests in freedom of navigation and use of international waters; and proposing to allow U.S.
    servicemen and women to be prosecuted by an unconstitutional International Criminal Court.

  • Corrupting the Military’s Code of Conduct: In a way the cruelest — and,
    arguably, most
    insidious — cut of all, however, has been the Administration’s assault on the military’s code of
    conduct. It is bad enough having a Commander-in-Chief whose behavior betrays every
    principle of that code, from personal integrity and individual responsibility, to marital fidelity
    and a commitment to the truth. Then there are the corrupting effects of the Clinton team’s
    political correctness including: its efforts to foist open homosexuality on the military, its use of
    double-standards to claim women equally fit and eligible for combat, and its destruction of the
    careers of those who dare to challenge these practices in the correct belief that they will be
    inimical to the armed forces’ essential order and discipline.

Enter Daryl Jones

Just when it seemed things couldn’t get worse on this score, President Clinton
nominates an
individual to become Secretary of the Air Force who epitomizes all that is wrong with his
Administration’s war on the moral fiber of the U.S. military.

The nominee, Florida State Senator Daryl Jones, seems to fit the Clinton
selection criteria
perfectly: He is an Air Force Academy graduate with experience flying fighter aircraft, a
businessman and politician who happens to be an African-American. (He enjoys support from
certain Republicans for reasons that appear to stem primarily from the last of these attributes.)
Unfortunately, Mr. Jones also fits the profile of many who populate what President-elect Clinton
once promised would be the “most ethical administration in history” — he seems to have
a
chronic problem with telling the truth.

In Mr. Jones’ case, this problem has manifested itself in: the nominee’s misrepresentations —
among other places, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which must confirm him — of
his flying record and status (according to some accounts, resulting in his receipt of unearned extra
pay for several years); his reported violation of Pentagon regulations by running for elective office
using a billboard and other promotional material displaying him in uniform; and Jones’ abuse of
his position as an officer by inducing enlisted subordinates to purchase Amway products he was
distributing. His business activities are also the subject of an SEC investigation over allegations
of possible criminal misconduct. His conflicting statements about these and other matters have
contributed to an eight-month delay so far in his confirmation and not one, but two,
FBI
background checks.

If the armed services are lucky, the individuals — often political hacks and contributors — who
fill
what are generally regarded as plum patronage positions, more ceremonial than substantive, pass
their time in office as non-entities. Occasionally, someone of genuine ability makes a real
contribution.

The position of service secretary, however, is one in which a person of flawed or
disreputable character can do real harm. As the most immediate symbol of civilian
control of
the military, such an individual can, for example, compound the lack of confidence and
demoralization that many military personnel already feel in their leadership. This may be
especially true in the Air Force, which is suffering a potentially catastrophic loss of skilled pilots
from its ranks. One of these, a twenty-year veteran and experienced F-16 pilot who served in
Jones’ reserve unit, has resigned his commission in protest over this appointment; others may well
follow suit if Clinton’s nominee is confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force.

The Bottom Line

The cost of training a front-line military pilot is estimated to be on the order of $6 million
apiece.
The loss of these critical personnel is, therefore, an economic problem as well as one that bears
upon the readiness and warfighting capability of the U.S. Air Force. Neither that service
nor
the Nation can afford a Secretary of the Air Force who is likely to compound this problem
and otherwise advance the counterculture assault on the U.S. military.

– 30 –

1. See Clinton Legacy Watch # 22: More Evidence of
A Hollow Military (No. 98-D 62, 7 April
1998) and Clinton Legacy Watch # 17: Dangers of A ‘Hollow
Military’ (No. 98-D 23, 5
February 1998).

2. Last week, thanks to a subpoena from the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee, Dr. Peter
Leitner — a courageous whistle blower on the staff of the Defense Technology Security
Administration (DTSA) — was able to provide detailed information about the ways in which the
Clinton team has advanced its technology insecurity agenda. According to the
Washington Post,
Dr. Leitner told the Committee that:

    “The Clinton administration has ‘neutered’ DTSA’s 140 employees through a variety
    of means [including]: by naming Pentagon leaders who disagree with DTSA’s central
    mission; by giving DTSA analysts only minutes or hours to decipher the complexities of
    the 21,000 proposed high-tech transfers it reviews each year; by reducing DTSA’s
    dealings with intelligence agencies knowledgeable about foreign adversaries; and by
    establishing interagency procedures skewed toward sale of U.S. technology.”

For more on the Administration’s disastrous technology transfer policy — and Dr.
Leitner’s
efforts to raise alarms about it — see Broadening the Lens: Peter Leitner’s
Revelations on ’60
Minutes,’ Capitol Hill Indict Clinton Technology Insecurity (No. 97-P 82, 19 June
1997).

3. See, for example, Clinton Legacy Watch # 26: The
‘Feckless-izing’ of U.S. Security Policy
(No. 98-D 112, 16 June 1998).

4. See the following products by the William J. Casey Institute of the
Center for Security Policy:
The Plot Thickens: Stuart Eizenstat Blows More Smoke in House Hearing About
Kyoto’s
Impact on U.S. National Security (No. 98-C 83, 14
May 1998) and Effects of Clinton’s Global
Warming Treaty on U.S. Security Gives New Meaning to the Term ‘Environmental
Impact’
(No. 97-C 149, 6 October 1997).

Missile Defense Imperatives

By Jim Nicholson
The Washington

“This beautiful night, there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at a child in the United
States
of America.” President Clinton spoke those words in August 1996. Now, we must conclude,
either he didn’t know what he was talking about or the Chinese have made a great leap forward in
nuclear missile technology in a very short time.

According to the CIA, the Chinese have 13 long-range CSS-4 nuclear missiles aimed at
American children and, indeed, at Americans of all ages. Are those missiles more reliable and
accurate thanks to technology supplied to China illegally by a company run by Mr. Clinton’s
biggest contributor?

That’s the conclusion of a Pentagon agency and a top State Department official, as has been
widely reported. What we don’t know is whether Mr. Clinton consciously compromised national
security as part of some sort of quid pro quo. Even partisans like me must hope – fervently – that
this isn’t so.

But no matter what brought about China’s newfound nuclear missile prowess, the American
response ought to be the same. We ought to do something to protect Americans from Chinese
missiles – and from missiles of any other national origin. We ought to build a national missile
defense system.

Old-line thinkers say we don’t need to protect ourselves. They invoke MAD – Mutually
Assured Destruction – the Cold War doctrine that said the Soviet Union would never attack
America because to do so would inevitably lead to the annihilation of both states. But such a
doctrine only makes sense when dealing with governments that are – no matter how evil –
essentially rational. Rogue nations like Iran, a recipient of Chinese nuclear assistance, may not
find the logic of MAD persuasive. And clearly MAD has no application where terrorist
organizations are concerned. The obvious alternative is for the U.S. government to do its job and
provide for the national security by building a shield to protect us from nuclear missile attack.

So far, however, the Clinton administration and most congressional Democrats have
rejected
such an idea out of hand. Just last month, 41 Senate Democrats blocked even debate on the
American Missile Protection Act of 1998. The bill would have required the government to deploy
as soon as technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of
defending U.S. territory against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized
or deliberate).

Only four Democrats voted for it, and the bill fell one vote short of passing. Tellingly, two
of
the four Democratic senators voting yes were from Hawaii – a state where people know
something about sneak attacks, and the piece of America geographically closest to China.

Why do most Democrats insist on leaving America unprotected? Believe it or not, Mr.
Clinton
says building a strategic defense to protect the American people would violate the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty – a treaty signed with the Soviet Union, a nation that no longer
exists.

It should not take a rocket scientist to understand that adhering to a nuclear weapons
agreement with a defunct country is both legally unnecessary and strategically shortsighted.

The administration also argues that its policy of nuclear non-proliferation will ensure
America’s
strategic defense. But the recent nuclear tests in India and Pakistan vividly demonstrate the folly
of that policy. Maybe if the Clinton administration had done a better job with intelligence, we
would not have been surprised by those tests. Maybe, if the Clinton administration had done a
better job with diplomacy, those tests could have been prevented. And maybe if the Clinton
administration had been more conservative about technology transfers, China would not have had
the nuclear technology to give Pakistan and Iran – which prompted India to flaunt its weapons
program, setting off a chain reaction that has yet to be cut off.

All that is for investigators and historians to sort out. The current reality is that a new arms
race is under way and that the nuclear club is expanding. The time to act is now, before it is too
late.

As a first step, the Navy should immediately begin adapting its AEGIS fleet air defense
system
to provide missile protection for both this country and our forces overseas. Other systems should
be researched, developed and deployed as quickly as possible.

This project is not beyond our reach. Surely, the nation that both put a man on the moon
and
invented the computer video game can find a way to knock hostile missiles out of the skies. I
invite President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and other Democrats to join us, and make
safeguarding America a bipartisan project.

But if they will not, the Republican Party is prepared to have this become a political issue.
We
are prepared to ask the American people if they agree the United States should be defenseless
against weapons of mass destruction, relying instead on outdated treaties and the good intentions
of our adversaries.

What Bill Clinton said back in 1996 about no foreign missiles being aimed at our kids
wasn’t
true. But we can do something to protect our children and ourselves – and it won’t cost a single
life, American or foreign. We need to get started.

Jim Nicholson, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is chairman of the
Republican
National Committee.

Clinton Legacy Watch # 26: The ‘Feckless-izing’ of U.S. Security Policy

(Washington, D.C.): Everyone knows the Clinton Administration has been busily downsizing
the
U.S. government, though most are unaware this has been accomplished principally at the expense
of the Nation’s military force structure, the backbone of American security policy. What has,
until recently, gone largely unremarked — in this country at least — is the fact that the
Administration has also been engaged in another, equally troubling phenomenon: the
“feckless-izing” of American security policy.

Kosovo — A Case in Point

The past few days’ activities regarding Kosovo exemplify the problem:

  • First, came frantic attempts over a period of weeks to build a multilateral
    consensus     for
    punishing a “rogue” leader of a “rogue state.” In this instance, the object of this diplomatic
    lather was Slobodan Milosevic — the war criminal who bears greatest responsibility for
    Serbia’s aggression against Croatia and Bosnia, a despot who is now engaged in more acts of
    ethnic cleansing against his own subjects.
  • Next, came U.S.-promoted threats and accompanying brandishing of military
    hardware.
    In this case, the vehicle was a 13-nation, 85-aircraft NATO fly-over of Macedonia and Albania
    — areas adjacent to but out of sight of Kosovo. Instead of actually dropping
    weapons, which
    might have heightened the impression that the West meant business, at Russian insistence there
    was no live-fire component, just aerial maneuvers, refueling and the like.
  • Third, came Russia’s interference (a.k.a. “mediation”). As the airshow
    was underway in
    the Balkans, its intended audience, Milosevic, was paying court to his sponsors in Moscow.
    The Clinton Administration let it be known that the President had spent 40 minutes on the
    phone giving Boris Yeltsin his talking points for the session (presumably: “stay sober”; “talk
    sternly”; “frown”; “tell him we are serious”; etc.) One senior NATO official actually told the
    Wall Street Journal yesterday: “It’s wait-and-see time now. If Yeltsin can pull this
    off and
    force Milosevic to back down, we will all be the happier for it.”
  • Finally, comes word from the Kremlin that the object of Western hand-wringing
    and saber-rattling has, thanks to Russian mediation, agreed to parley.     Diplomats rush to
    assure the
    press and the public that they are going to be looking carefully at the fine print. But, as a
    practical matter, whatever Moscow has cooked up is going to be “good enough for
    government work.”
    In any event, the word will soon go out that there is not much we can do about the
    terms if, as can be predicted, the details of the Yeltsin-Milosevic understanding prove
    to be unacceptable: There is no stomach for a war; Russia will wield its veto in the UN
    Security Council even if a war over Kosovo were desirable and, since multilateralism is
    now the order of the day, there will be no military action without the Russians (the
    French will see to that).

One Mo’ Time

Sound familiar? If this seems like Yogi Berra’s deja vu all over again, it
is. The foregoing
describes essentially the same play that was run by the Kremlin a few months ago to
protect another of its clients: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Its beauty from the point of view
of
the Primakovs of this world is that, in the process of saving Russia’s friends, this gambit also
serves to neutralize and demean the West — and, in particular, the United States, while
demonstrating Russia’s re-emergence as the truly “indispensable nation.”

Unfortunately, the hapless Clinton Administration seems approximately as ill-prepared to deal
with the present crisis as it was the last time it was snookered by Russian Foreign Minister
Yevgeny Primakov. As the Center for Security Policy noted on 11 March 1998:

    “In the former Yugoslavia, as in Iraq, the Clinton Administration refuses to recognize
    the fundamental reality: One cannot ‘do business’ with psychopathic,
    megalomaniacal criminals like Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein.     By trying
    to do so, the United States government merely emboldens and empowers them, even as
    it demoralizes and otherwise undermines those whose commitment to Western-style
    values compels them to oppose the regime in question.

    “It is time for America to adopt a fundamentally different approach in both
    the Balkans and Iraq. We must address the source of the problem in these
    crises — Milosevic and Saddam, respectively.     Toward this end, Washington
    must stop compounding the ignominy and futility of U.S. policy by subordinating
    it to the dumbing-down that is unavoidable if its approval by Russia, the UN or
    others must be obtained.”

A similar view is expressed in an superb essay entitled “To End the Kosovo Slaughter,
Target the Source” published in today’s Wall Street Journal ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-D_112at”>see the attached). George Melloan
brilliantly dissects Milosevic’s cynical and ruthless modus operandi — and the U.S.
government’s
haplessness when confronted with it and the support it enjoys in Moscow. Such is Mr. Melloan’s
grasp of the Clinton ‘feckless-izing” dynamic that, even though his deadline preceded the Butcher
of Belgrade’s mission to Moscow, his column accurately predicted what would happen:

    “If Slobo operates true to form, he will make limited concessions. If Bill Clinton
    operates true to form, as in Iraq for example, he will take the heat off in return, rather
    than risking some serious action. The source of the Balkan problems in the last
    decade, Slobodan Milosevic, will remain in place to cause still more trouble down
    the road.”

The Bottom Line

The United States has helped to make situations like the present one in Kosovo more likely —
and
more intractable — by its failure to identify the true sources of the serious challenges to American
interests and allies around the world; by its creation of vacuums of power thanks to its hollowing
out of the U.S. military and the attendant inability to articulate, let alone implement, a coherent
strategy; and by its proclivity for subordinating national interests to the dictates of the UN, the
manipulation of the Kremlin and the corrupting effects of a foreign policy defined by trade
uber
alles. Corrective action is urgently required in each of these areas if the feckless-izing of
America’s security policy is to be reversed before any further damage results.

To End the Kosovo Slaughter, Target the Source

By George Melloan
The Wall Street Journal, 16 June 1998

Slobodan Milosevic, the most murderous European politician since the era of Hitler and
Stalin, is
in Moscow today seeking comfort from Boris Yeltsin. The Yugoslav president will promise to
behave better if Boris will intercede yet again with the Western powers. He wants the Russian
president to deflect a North Atlantic Treaty Organization ultimatum demanding an end to his
latest predations, this time in Serbia’s Kosovo province.

The allies seem serious. Remarkably united in comparison to past dithering over the Balkans,
they
made four demands last Thursday: Milosevic must cease military action; withdraw his troops from
Kosovo; allow international monitors to enter the province; and begin peace talks with leaders of
the Albanian majority there. In a mild show of force, NATO conducted an air exercise near
Kosovo’s borders yesterday morning. Russia played its expected first-act role when its defense
minister objected to the exercises on grounds that Moscow had not been consulted in advance.

This is the toughest line NATO has taken against the Belgrade thug since 1995. But don’t bet
that
the Serbian merchant of death and deception won’t come out on top. He has so far. As president
of Serbia, he was primarily responsible for engulfing the former Yugoslav states in a four-year
war that cost the lives of nearly 300,000 souls, made 3 million homeless and gave us that
charming expression, “ethnic cleansing.” Ethnic cleansing is what “Slobo” is currently about in
Kosovo. The province of 2 million people is 90% Albanian and the Albanians are being punished
for finally rising up against the harsh Serbian police-state rule that Milosevic imposed on them
more than eight years ago. Towns and villages are being razed by Serb shelling.

The mere fact that Slobo is still around to do more killing is a mark of his political skills. He
manipulated the Bosnian war from a distance, leaving the dirty work to the likes of Bosnian Serb
“president” Radovan Karadzic and his military commander, Ratko Mladic, both of whom have
been indicted in absentia by the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. Even they could
not rival Slobo’s most notorious killer, Zeljko Raznatovic (better known as “Arkan”) who roamed
the war zone slaughtering Muslim and Croat women and children in the name of ethnic cleansing.

When the Serbs had most of the Bosnian territory they wanted and were in danger of
suffering
reverses at the hands of the Croats and Bosnian Muslims, Slobo was ready for peace. He earned
the gratitude of Bill Clinton by delivering to him the Dayton Accord, which ended the fighting in
Bosnia. Slobo thus became, in Mr. Clinton’s mind, indispensable for preserving peace.

But that cynical calculation has backfired. Slobo assumed that his newfound favor in
Washington
gave him carte blanche to settle with the Kosovo Albanians, who were growing increasingly
restive under Serbian rule. Hence, his new campaign of terror, which is racking up a new string of
civilian deaths and sending thousands of Kosovars fleeing into neighboring Albania. He is
compounding the felony by planting land mines along the border to stop the refugees and prevent
reinforcement of the Kosovo resistance movement, called the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).

Ethnic Albanians have inhabited Kosovo for centuries, but the Serbs also have a claim dating
back
to the defeat of their Tsar Lazar by the Turks on the field of Kosovo in June of 1389. After World
War II, President Tito of Yugoslavia had the good sense to give Kosovo a high degree of
autonomy as a province of Serbia.

But Slobo destroyed that autonomy in 1989. After a fiery Serbian nationalist speech on the
ancient battlefield, he threw out Albanian officials, school principals and the like and installed
Serbs to run the province. More recently he has imported Serbs displaced by the fighting in
Bosnia and Croatia to occupy Kosovar land in an effort to shift the population balance toward
Serbia. Neither the refugees nor the Kosovars have been happy about that. It was this and other
ham-fisted actions that gave rise to the KLA, which now claims to control about 40% of the
province. The Serbian army, however, controls the major towns, or at least those it hasn’t
destroyed in its scorched-earth policy.

It was this campaign that prompted last week’s NATO declaration. If Slobo operates true to
form, he will make limited concessions. If Bill Clinton operates true to form, as in Iraq for
example, he will take the heat off in return rather than risking some serious action. The source of
the Balkan problems of the last decade, Slobodan Milosevic, will remain in place to cause still
more trouble down the road.

In a past era of more forceful leadership in the West, Milosevic would long ago have been
tabbed
as a war criminal and treated as such. The war crimes tribunal in the Hague was expressly created
for people like him, but so far it has nailed none of the top felons in the Balkan tragedy.

It is argued by the usual “what-can-we-do?” crowd that if Milosevic should fall, the next
Serbian
leader would be even worse. There can be no doubt that some of the leading players in Serbian
politics in recent years have been unattractive characters. Some, such as Vojislav Seselj of the
Serbian Radical Party, are insanely nationalist.

But the Serbian people, judging from recent minimal election turnouts, are getting
increasingly fed
up with all these clowns, including Slobo. After demonstrations against him two years ago, he had
to muster all his devious tricks to hold onto power, for one thing transferring his power base from
the Serbian to the Yugoslav presidency, which co-exist. Milo Djukanovic, elected president of
Montenegro last November despite Slobo’s opposition, is another enemy, which is of some
moment since Montenegro is the only other remaining state of the Yugoslav federation.
Yugoslavia and Serbia may soon be synonyms.

If last week signals Washington’s disillusionment with the fruits of its soft line toward
Milosevic,
that’s progress. For one thing, it might suggest that someone finally is thinking less about
immediate political risks and more about punishing one of the great villains of our time. The more
such men are allowed to get by with murder, the more there are likely to be.

New Theory For Clinton-Gore Silence on Y2K Emerges as N.P.R., Gingrich Offer Contrasting Views of the Danger

(Washington, D.C.): In recent months, the growing appreciation in key business, media and
political circles that the Year 2000 (Y2K) Crisis is shaping up to be a potential national and
international catastrophe has been accompanied by an increasingly insistent question:
Why are
President Clinton and most especially his computer technology point-man, Vice President
Al Gore, nowhere to be seen on this issue?(1)
Why, in particular, is this so when leadership on
their part in raising public awareness about the potential disaster could, even at this late
date,
enable Americans and others to take steps that might substantially mitigate the Millennium Bug’s
effects?

The need for such leadership was made palpable in a commentary broadcast on 5 June by
National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” program. The editorial by Lauren
Weinstein,
someone described as a Los Angeles-based technology writer, asserted that the most likely
problems people will experience as a result of the Millennium Bug will “be of the hassle
variety…hardly earth-shattering.” Weinstein declared that the Year 2000 problem is unlike — and
more benign than — the myriad other computer bugs which can cause a computer
system to crash
insofar as it can be “predicted.” Then, he concluded with the ultimate soporific: “One
thing’s for
sure: On January 1, 2000, the sun will come up,(2) even if
there are some computers that go
down.”

Cold Dawn

Given what is now known about the gravity of the looming Y2K crisis, it is
incredible that some
people still low-ball its likely repercussions. The indisputable fact is that disruptions will
affect
the operations of at least some of the mainframe computers responsible for vital
services like the
power grid, telecommunications, banking and control of air, train and ground transportation and
at least some of the microprocessors governing everything from elevators, nuclear
power plants,
military hardware and oil tankers and refineries.

Those knowledgeable about the Millennium Bug paint a very different picture than NPR’s
Weinstein. As one of the world’s leading experts, Peter de Jager, recently put
it: “If today were
December 31, 1999 and our systems were in the… state they are in today, tomorrow our economy
world-wide would stop. It wouldn’t grind to a halt, it would snap to a halt.” href=”#N_3_”>(3)

What is most frightening is the fact that the gravity of the Y2K crisis will depend in
no small
measure on how well we use the time between now and its onset to fix what can be fixed —
and make contingency plans for dealing with what cannot be fixed in the time available.

Unfortunately, the time left is even less than one might think. While the
Y2K problem will
peak at midnight on 1 January 2000, its effects will begin to be felt far sooner. For example,
financial data will begin to be corrupted as companies, states and the federal government begin
their fiscal years on various dates throughout 1999.

The real danger is that those who downplay the damage the Y2K bug might cause,
discourage others from taking the threat seriously — and, more importantly, from taking
steps now that will mitigate its effects.

Wanted: Leadership

What is really needed, though, is to have those who are in a position to speak authoritatively
about the necessity of quickly addressing the Y2K crisis do so, at once. In particular,
the
American people are entitled to hear the truth from the President and Vice President —
who have, after all, the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding the security and economy of
the United States — about the urgent requirement for corrective action in both the
public
and private sectors. If ever there were a time for the bully pulpit to be used to good
effect, this
is it.

As Dr. Edward Yardini, Chief Economist and a Managing Director of
Deutsche Morgan
Grenfell, put it at a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies conference,

“We need to alarm the public. You’re not going to panic anybody a year and a half in
advance of the problem. You can alarm the public, and then the public can pressure the
politicians and the business leaders to do everything in their power to fix this problem.
If we don’t let the public in on the problem, then they will panic sometime in the
next year.“(4)

In short, while it is a safe bet that the sun will come up on 1 January 2000, if we haven’t
taken steps to address comprehensively the Y2K threat, it may prove to be a very cold dawn,
indeed.

Where’s Al?

The good news is that Vice President Gore is apparently not among those who understand
that
the Y2K problem will be considerably more than a small “hassle.” href=”#N_5_”>(5) The bad news is that
neither he nor the President are using the “bully pulpit” to arouse to action their
countrymen — and those of other computer-dependent societies overseas.

This curious silence has begun to receive critical attention from other leading Americans. For
example, in a memorandum circulated last month to Members of Congress and others,
Steve
Forbes speculated that the Clinton Administration may be deferring warnings about the
Y2K
problem until after the November 1998 elections so as not to jeopardize the popular feeling of
economic well-being that may improve Democratic chances of regaining control of at least the
House of Representatives.(6) Many experts agree
that the loss of a further six months that
would result from such a deferral would further reduce the opportunity for corrective
action, probably sealing the fate of hundreds of thousands of American companies that
might
have survived the Millennium Bug — if given an unmistakable warning and the
opportunity to
prepare for it.

On 8 June, House Speaker Newt Gingrich made the observation that
Americans so affected
would be unlikely to forgive the Vice President for this avoidable tragedy: “I can’t
imagine
anything more destructive for Gore’s political future than to talk about the information
superhighway and then to have the largest wreck in history on the first of January
2000.”

An Alternative Theory for Clinton-Gore’s Lack of Visible Leadership on
Y2K

The salience of this political assessment seems so compelling as to invite speculation that
the
President and Vice President must have some different strategy for contending with — and
perhaps exploiting — the devastating effects of their failure of leadership. One of the
theories gaining currency in Y2K circles is that Messrs. Clinton and Gore are positioning
themselves to off-load the blame onto subordinates like Y2K “Czar” John Koskinen and the
Administration’s Cabinet officers, while seizing upon the upheaval caused by the Millennium Bug
to advance economic and political measures justified as crisis-management initiatives — measures
that would otherwise be anathema to the American people.

A prominent Y2K specialist who wished to remain anonymous recently shared with the Casey
Institute what may be a reasonable facsimile of the Clinton-Gore gameplan for turning the lemon
of the Millennium Bug into, if not lemonade, then “bug juice”:

    “…In this country, we have a tendency to kill the messenger. Those people that bring
    us bad news are often tainted by that news. When the Year 2000 Problem hits,
    those people who have been proclaiming its coming and warning us of its
    consequences will be the ones most associated with it….    President Clinton and Vice
    President Gore have figured this one out some time ago.

    “If you cannot solve the problem, get as far away from it as possible. Let others
    take the point (and the heat) on it. To better illustrate this, let’s look at the
    current situation regarding the Year 2000 and the White House:

  • “Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore have been noticeably silent on the matter in
    spite of
    congressional cries for a strong Administration position. [In particular,] Al Gore — the
    self-appointed technology czar — has been conspicuously quiet about a major,
    worldwide technology issue. No amount of questions can get him to discuss the Year
    2000 Problem

  • “The President appointed John Koskinen to head up the President’s Year 2000 Council.
    Mr. Koskinen came out of retirement to head this largely impotent council, href=”#N_7_”>(7) and he will
    return to retirement after everything crashes around him on January 1, 2000. If ever
    there was a ‘fall guy,’ John Koskinen is it.     Besides, there is not enough time for a
    new person to get settled, ascertain the problem, formulate a plan, and see it through to
    implementation. Mr. Koskinen was appointed about two years too late to do anything
    productive.

  • “The Year 2000 Council has no authority to act, allocate funds, or force
    an agency to
    do anything. It is a figurehead organization with monitoring or oversight
    responsibilities, and little else.

  • “The White House and its representatives have repeatedly stated that the
    responsibility
    for Year 2000 correction efforts should be at the Cabinet level.     This helps isolate
    the President (and Vice President) from responsibility for any problems that will surely
    occur, and allow appropriate finger-pointing at the department secretaries and agency
    heads when their agencies fail. They will take the blame while the White House
    stays at least one level removed from the fray.

    “Bill Clinton is the consummate politician. His ability to have scandals and other
    problems slide right off him makes real Teflon look like glue. He knows how to let
    others take the fall, and he knows how to turn a disaster into an opportunity. He is one
    of the few people in the world who can fall into a pile of manure and get up wearing a
    new tuxedo. This has been his modus operandi for his entire life, and he is not about
    to
    change now.

    “How will Mr. Clinton turn this disaster into an opportunity, particularly for his
    Veep?…By consistently distancing himself and his Administration from the
    problem, Mr. Clinton has set the stage for his final and most poignant legacy.
    He will be the President that saves us all from a terrible ordeal.     He will be
    the knight in shining armor that comes to our aid when we are most in need of
    help. In essence, he will do nothing until the problem actually happens.
    Then he will take action.

    “When the Year 2000 Problem hits us with all of its force – economic chaos,
    financial disruptions, closed businesses, power failures, food shortages and the
    collapse of essential government services — Mr. Clinton will step forward to fix
    everything.     He will denounce and chastise the corporate CEOs that allowed
    their companies to fail. He will fire the agency heads that allowed their
    organizations to cease effective operations. He will wonder aloud how these
    people could have allowed such a thing to happen. And then he will announce his
    plan to make it all better. He will address the American people, as well as the rest
    of the world, and tell us all about the actions he will take to make the problem go
    away.

    “He will declare a national emergency and institute the appropriate measures that
    national emergencies require. He will impose rations on food and gas. He will
    muster all the resources of the federal government and the private sector to fix the
    problem. He will ask for (no, he will demand) emergency appropriations. He will
    call out the National Guard, if necessary. Perhaps he will even nationalize key
    industries.

    “But no matter what he does, the American people will thank him for
    it.
    They will not be concerned that this disaster happened on his watch. They will
    only be concerned that he is fixing their problems and making their lives better.
    That is the most important thing, and that is what the American people will
    remember.

    “Republicans will be dumbfounded. No matter how hard they will try to pin the
    blame on the White House, no one will care. When you have no electricity, no
    dial tone on your telephone, food is hard to find, you can’t get your money out of
    your bank, or your business is about to fail, you will only care about getting the
    problems fixed as soon as possible. The person who can fix your problems is the
    person to whom you will pledge eternal gratitude. Bill Clinton will step up to his
    place in history as the man, not unlike Franklin Roosevelt, who picked us up and
    carried us out of an economic crisis. He will become the hero of this disaster.
    And of course, Al Gore is the man he will appoint to carry out his plan. The
    gratitude of the American people will be overwhelming. The elections could
    translate into a Democratic landslide, at least for Mr. Gore.”

The Bottom Line

This scenario may sound too Machiavellian for an administration characterized more by
incompetence than savoir faire. It will strike some as unfairly attributing to the
Clinton-Gore
team a ruthless willingness to subordinate the national good to individual political advantage.
Perhaps. Still, the foregoing theory appears a good candidate to fit the available
facts.

Republicans obviously have an interest in assuring the failure of such a strategy. More
importantly, however, every American irrespective of party affiliation should
want to see the
country spared the dire conditions that might be exploited in this way by the President and
Vice President.

Citizens of all political stripes and walks of life should, therefore, be demanding that
Messrs.
Clinton and Gore provide leadership on Y2K at once — not six or eighteen months
from
now. That leadership can only be expressed by visible, authoritative and energetic
warnings about
the gravity of the danger and by demonstrations of the determination of those at the highest levels
of government and private industry to ensure that corrective action receives the priority it
deserves, and must have.

– 30 –

1. See the Casey Institute Perspective entitled
Where’s AL? The Veep is Missing in Action on
the ‘Y2K’ Crisis (No. 98-C 76, 1 May 1998).

2. Interestingly, a few days after the Weinstein interview, another
contributor to “Morning
Edition” — Eric Schoenberg — used this same phrase to pooh-pooh concerns about the
substantial exposure millions of baby boomers face as a result of inadequate pension coverage.
Pre-dawn radio programs may have an understandable preoccupation with the sun rising; the
predictability of that event, however, should not be seen by the rest of us as a basis for pollyannish
illusions about impending crises having nothing to do with astrological phenomena.

3. See the Casey Institute Perspective entitled
‘Where’s Al?’: C.S.I.S. Symposium Indicts
A.W.O.L. Veep, Administration on Looming Y2K Crisis ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-C_97″>No. 98-C 97, 3 June 1997).

4. See previous Casey Institute products on the Y2K problem,
including: Bad News for the Veep:
Y2K Will Be ‘Al’s Mess’ (No. 98-C 93, 28 May
1998) and Galaxy 4 Meltdown: A Small
Foretaste of the Millennium Bug; Where’s Al? (No. 98-C
88, 21 May 1998).

5. See Stephen Barr and Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “For Gore, low
profile on a high-tech headache;
Vice President is silent on Year 2000 computer glitch that could haunt his campaign,”
Washington Post, 28 May 1998.

6. See the Casey Institute Perspective entitled
Forbes Urges Congress to Fill ‘Leadership
Vacuum’ on Year 2000 ‘Bug’; Y2k ‘Czar’ Tries to Shift Blame for Coming Crisis
(No. 98-C
85, 16 May 1998).

7. At the recent summit on the Y2K Crisis sponsored by the Center
for Strategic and International
Studies, it was revealed that Mr. Koskinen’s office has something like four full-time employees,
himself, a secretary and two interns.

Excerpts of “American Leadership: Prosperity’s Prerequisite”

An Address by Steve Forbes before
the William J. Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy

New York City
4 May 1998

The test of America’s mettle lies in its role as truly that shining city on the hill, as the exemplar
and indeed advocate of freedom….

While we seek to expand the number of democracies as our most reliable partners in the
world,
the United States must follow the formula Ronald Reagan taught us for dealing with
dictatorships. It can be summed up in twin “D’s” — deterrence and determination.

Inexplicably, however, the Clinton-Gore Administration is systematically dismantling
America’s
military capabilities. It is simultaneously discrediting U.S. determination in dealing with
dictatorships. This Administration has acted as a universal solvent corroding the pillars of
strength upon which economic stability rests.

A Dangerous Demobilization

The Clinton-Gore Administration is engaged in a dangerous demobilization of
American
defense capabilities. It is systematically stripping away America’s military might. It is
severely weakening our ability to defend ourselves, to project our power, or to protect our
allies and interests.

Today, the U.S. spends less on defense as a percentage of our economy than we did at any
time
since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We’re spending a wee bit more than 3% of GDP on
defense — the least we’ve spent since the neglectful 1930s.

If enacted, the President’s budget proposal for Fiscal Year 1999 will mark the
14th
consecutive year that defense has been cut in real, inflation-adjusted dollars. Three-quarters
of the reduction of the budget deficit since Bill Clinton took office has come at the
expense of defense capabilities.

The ‘Balanced Budget Agreement’ — the Holy Grail of the congressional Republicans — will
bring
American defense spending down to just 2.6% of GDP by 2002. Should the United
States be
spending as little a proportion of its economy’s size as Norway does at the beginning of the
new millennium?

Beyond the “macro” numbers are tangible examples of the impact of this stunning defense
draw-down. For instance, as a naval power historically and geographically, the United States has
relied
on the ability to project military force wherever it is necessary. But annual procurement
of
ships has dropped 80 percent since the 1980s. The result? The 600-ship navy
envisaged by
Ronald Reagan and his Navy Secretary John Lehman will soon slip toward the 250-ship level
because of lack of planning and procurement….

And it’s not just the Navy. The Army currently has 125 completely
unmanned infantry
squads — squads that exist on paper at the Pentagon, but are not really there….There’s
nobody
home.

As of January of this year, the Air Force reported that it is a full 1,000 pilots
short of its needs.
By fiscal year 2002, this shortage is expected to grow to 1,800 pilots.

***

Even President Clinton’s own former choice for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
John Shalikashvili, testified to the Congress that the United States had better spend $60
billion
dollars more annually on procurement.

It is time to invest more to make up that modernization gap. The Congressional
leadership
has not yet exhibited the political ‘moxie’ to do so. But there is no more important
insurance policy for America and [the] world than defense. We can
afford the premiums on
that policy.

Declining spending and procurement are not the Clinton-Gore Administration’s only sin,
sapping
America’s power to deter aggression. The way the Administration has spent what
remains of
America’s military resources is also a source of trouble. The two quadrennial defense
planning reviews it has conducted have been based on preparation to fight two medium-sized
wars at the same time.

But the U.S. cannot now meet that requirement, not least because of some multilateral
deployments which tax America’s ‘lift’ capabilities for quick deployment and redeployment of
military assets. As bland an observer as the General Accounting Office — hardly the bastion of
Reaganite agitation — documented that fact.

America the Vulnerable

The coup de grace has been President Clinton’s refusal to defend
America against missile
attack. A power of far less military might than we could wreak havoc on us by lobbing
nuclear,
chemical, or biological weapons via ballistic missiles. And most Americans don’t even know that
the military they regard so highly lacks the capability to prevent devastation from missile attack.

Yet to dissuade an aggressor from sending missiles our way — to deter him — we must show
that
we can stop his missiles before they reach American homes and families. Potential aggressors
must see this is not an “Achilles heel” for America — otherwise our role as the “indispensable
nation,” as Madeleine Albright calls us, is untenable.

Indeed, rather than permitting a retreat into a ‘Fortress America,’ in building
advanced ballistic
missile defenses, we would lay the foundation for the next phase of American primacy — an
era devoted to extending the scope of global freedom.

But President Clinton refuses to even move ahead with the technology we have. For instance,
we
can go a long way toward constructing a viable missile defense system for ourselves and our
allies in Europe and Israel and Taiwan and South Korea, to name a few, by integrating
missile defense innovations with existing technologies on AEGIS cruisers today. But
President Clinton has refused to even submit a plan for deploying a national missile defense
system as required by law passed by Congress.

What’s more, President Clinton continues to tie the United States’ hands on missile defense
R&D.
He clings to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was already a bad idea during the Cold War
given its reliance on what Frank Gaffney calls “assured vulnerability.” Anyway, the
nation that
we signed the treaty with — the Soviet Union — no longer exists.

With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles to carry them, the
ABM
Treaty is an even worse idea and missile defense is an even better idea than even when
Ronald Reagan delivered his heroic speech announcing a Strategic Defense Initiative
fifteen years ago.

President Clinton has worked to ‘multilateralize’ the ABM Treaty — to spread a bad idea to
other
nations. And he’s negotiated with Russian to limit how good and how fast our anti-missile
interceptors can be.

So by balancing the budget on the back of defense, by neglecting modernization, and
by
blocking missile defense, the Clinton-Gore Administration is undercutting global stability,
including economic stability. Mark my words, this will catch up to us. What goes around,
comes around. We ignore our national security at our peril.

Blunders in Dealing with Iraq

President Clinton’s policy toward short-term and long-term problems involving dictatorships
flouting the values and threatening the security of the Free World is all the more troubling. Take,
for instance, the Clinton Administration’s appalling policy toward Iraq, an immediate and critical
problem.

We have seen the world’s most dangerous man, a brutal, tin-pot dictator — who nevertheless
possesses weapons of unimaginable horror — to humiliate and outwit the world’s most powerful
nation.

When it comes to dealing with rogue nations, we are not seen as a reliable
friend. Even
friendly Arab nations who depend on us for their security were too afraid to let us launch air
attacks from their territory.

***

To paraphrase Clinton from his first campaign: “It’s Saddam, stupid.” Our policy
goal
should not be to contain Saddam; rather, it should be to remove him and his regime from
power. To accomplish this, we should assist the indigenous opposition to Saddam Hussein,
and help it by broadcasting the truth about Saddam’s blood-letting autocracy with a Radio
Free Iraq.

When dealing with such dictatorships who pose near-term problems, we need determination.
Yet
this President has shown little in the case of Iraq.

By allowing Saddam to go unpunished for his refusal to come clean on his weapons
programs, for
his attempted murder of former President Bush, and for his devastating attack on the
CIA-supported Iraqi opposition in the north in August of 1996, the president has dealt a severe
blow to
American leadership and credibility. The costs for dealing with Saddam will ultimately
be
higher in American treasure and lives than it would have been…if we had a president who
took his responsibilities for U.S. security seriously.

Blunders in Dealing with China

Reagan-style determination is even more important in dealing with great powers which pose
long-term problems. Take this Administration’s exemplary policy toward China, which is to say,
exemplary of what not to do. As in dealing with Iraq, until freedom at home renders
it a benign
power, deterrence and determination are essential for coping with the Chinese Communist
dictatorship.

As Sinologist Kenneth Lieberthal has observed, “China wants to be a rule setter, not just a
rule
acceptor.” Well, if China seeks to be respected as a great power in the world, it needs to be a rule
acceptor. We must get China to live by the rules in two vital areas: human rights and
arms
proliferation. In both areas, Clinton has used the old saw that [the] Chinese are sensitive to
losing
face as a pretext for reflexive accommodation of Beijing’s autocrats.

***

The Clinton Administration is not trying to get China to live by the norms of the
Free
World; it is letting China redefine those norms.

[This is true] in the case of weapons proliferation. China has a terrible record on arms
proliferation –from sending equipment used in refining weapons-grade material to Pakistan, to
giving cruise missiles to the state the Clinton Administration has called the world’s number one
sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

In recent weeks, the Administration has removed all pressure on China not to peddle
technology
related to weapons of mass destruction or missiles to carry them.

***

While commerce takes precedence over national security for this Administration
when it
comes to China, the money that really talks is that which buys policy decisions. We
should
stop acting like China holds all the cards in our relationship, as we have in the areas of human
rights and proliferation. Historian of China Arthur Waldon concludes, “China is more dependent
on the rest of the world than at any time since 1949.”

American credibility is at stake. If the Chinese are sensitive to losing face, then we should
take
advantage of that fact and let retribution about failure to live up to the civilized world’s standards
sting.

Asian Economic Crisis

In short, the slide in American preparedness and prestige seen in defense, Iraq, and China
policy
amount to a pattern of neglect and appeasement.

Then came the financial meltdown in Asia. Much has happened since last July … But one
thing is
now crystal clear: the pro-devaluation, pro-tax increase medicine the Clinton-Gore
Administration and the International Monetary Fund have prescribed to cure Asia’s
sinking economies and currencies has made things worse, not better.

***

[The Clinton-Gore Administration wants] U.S. taxpayers to subsidize this destructive advice
to
the tune of $18 billion in additional IMF funding.

Some of you may recall several years ago when this Administration pleaded for U.S.
taxpayers to
bailout Mexico. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said this was not going to set a
precedent. It wasn’t going to happen again, he said. Well, it’s happening again — and it is
wrong. Congress is right to say no — and it should not back down.

Why should hard-working Americans subsidize destructive institutions? Why should middle
class
taxpayers subsidize deadly prescriptions that are hurting others and will eventually hurt
themselves? When a doctor is guilty of malpractice — as is the IMF — you don’t renew
his
license and raise his pay.

The IMF has a long history of giving harmful economic advice to countries in trouble.
Of the 89
less-developed countries that the IMF has “helped” since 1965, most are poorer or no
better off.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that the opportunity for American leadership to truly shape the
future of
global security and prosperity has never been brighter. Yet, rarely have those in position
of leadership in this country — most notably the President himself — seemed so disinterested
and ill-equipped for the task.

***

We have been fortunate so far. But we will not always be so lucky. Remember the 1920s,
and
1930s, and the fearful price we paid for allied drift, dithering and indecision.

— End of Excerpts —

William Cohen’s Agenda

The Jerusalem Post, 20 April 1998

Though today’s visit will be his first as US secretary of defense, William Cohen will be
welcomed
as somewhat of an old friend, as befits the representative of a close strategic partner. Regardless
of the bumps in the diplomatic road, military relations between the United States and Israel have
never been closer. Washington rightly recognizes that, besides being in America’s strategic
interest, the tight military ties with Israel provide a critical backdrop without which the peace
process could not exist.

Cohen’s visit is part of a five-nation swing through the region, originally scheduled for last
December. If there is a theme to it, it would seem to be the situation in Iraq, which may have left
the headlines but not the concerns of the American defense establishment. In Turkey, Cohen
visited the Incirlik air force base, from which over 50 US, Turkish, and British aircraft fly out
daily to police the “no-fly” zone in northern Iraq.

In Incirlik on Saturday, Cohen sent another volley in America’s ongoing battle against the
pressure to prematurely lift the sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime, stating the Iraqi
leader has “an obligation to show proof of where, when, how and under what circumstances the
materials [to produce weapons of mass destruction] were destroyed … Until he does that, there
should be no lifting of the sanctions.”

The fact, however, that Cohen needs to make such statements shows that the fears of many
following the latest UN-brokered deal with Iraq are becoming reality – Saddam has succeeded in
shifting the international focus toward lifting sanctions.

What Cohen may be hearing in capitals as disparate as Istanbul, Amman, Jerusalem and Cairo
is
that keeping a lot of firepower parked outside Iraq and relying on UN inspectors may buy time,
but it does not constitute an effective policy. The bravest voice in this regard is that of Jordan’s
King Hussein, who, as a former supporter of Saddam and current neighbor, should be listened to
closely.

During a press briefing last month with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Hussein
said,
speaking of an Iraq freed from Saddam: “I visualize Iraq as a free country, as a democracy, as an
example of pluralism … I hope that the people of Iraq will be able to come together in dialogue to
live in a democracy, which is on the way. That would ensure that Iraq can contribute a positive
role to the future of the region. And we’ll continue to work for that to the best of our ability.”

Backing his words with action the very next day, Hussein met with the leader of Iraq’s
democratic
opposition, Iraqi National Congress President Ahmed Chalabi. Once again, King Hussein has
demonstrated what it means to be a leader, in a region fraught with uncertainty.

By contrast, official American support for Chalabi has been tepid at best. In an April 2 speech,
all
Albright could muster was: “We will explore ways to work more effectively with the Iraqi
democratic opposition.”

One good way to start would be for President Bill Clinton to meet with Chalabi, thereby
opening
the door for other leaders in the region – who may not be quite as gutsy as King Hussein – to help
the Iraqi National Congress.

It is difficult to fathom why the US seems slavishly attached to a policy, built upon
“containment”
and UN inspections, that is doomed to failure.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush Administration clearly decided that it would evict
Saddam
from Kuwait, but was not interested in overthrowing him. Not only would this have been an
expansion of the war’s objective, but the US was worried about upsetting the regional power
balance if post-Saddam Iraq were to break into pieces.

This may have been a rational consideration at the time, but to paraphrase King Hussein, now
there is a viable democratic alternative to Saddam. Given the existence of this alternative,
supporting it should be considered a strategic and moral imperative.

Much of Cohen’s visit will concern the many joint programs that constitute the nuts and bolts
of
the military relationship. One major agenda item – funding for a third battery of Scud-busting
Arrow missiles – is directly related to the missile threat from the east.

Yet security against missile attacks, for example, cannot only be viewed from the narrow
perspective of preparing military measures in self-defense. In the case of rogue regimes such as
Iraq’s, which have violated every international law and norm of civilized behavior, the first line of
defense is to help the people of that nation to free themselves.

Forbes Urges Congress to Fill ‘Leadership Vacuum’ on Year 2000 ‘Bug’; Y2K ‘Czar’ Tries to Shift Blame for Coming Crisis

(Washington, D.C.): On Friday, Steve Forbes sent a forceful two-page
memorandum to
Members of Congress and conservative leaders warning of the dangers of the Year 2000 (Y2K)
computer crisis. Mr. Forbes’ memo — issued by his public policy group, Americans for Hope,
Growth and Opportunity — is noteworthy not only for its being the first expression of dire
concern about this issue from a national political figure. No less striking was the harsh response it
received yesterday from the Clinton Administration’s Y2K point man, John
Koskinen.

Forbes’ Call to Arms

Mr. Forbes memo comes just eleven days after he delivered a major address on American
foreign
and defense policy as the keynote of a Symposium held in New York by the William J. Casey
Institute of the Center for Security Policy.(1) Highlights of
the latest, signal contribution by this
once-and-perhaps-future presidential candidate to the policy debate about U.S. economic and
national security included the following (emphasis added throughout):

  • “The Year 2000 (Y2K) computer crisis is now upon us and the federal government
    is
    even more woefully unprepared than the rest of society.     The implications are ominous.
    Medicare, the IRS, the Federal Aviation Administration and other basic agencies are operating
    on utterly out-of-date technology. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how dreadfully
    wrong things could go.”

  • “Some Y2K problems have surfaced already; more will surface soon. Most states
    begin their
    fiscal 2000 years on July 1, 1999; the federal government, on October 1, 1999.    “

  • “‘There is very little realization that there will be a disruption,’ Sherry Burns, director of the
    Central Intelligence Agency’s office studying the Year 2000 problem, told Reuters. ‘As
    you
    start getting out into the population, I think most people are again assuming that things
    are going to operate the way they always have. That is not going to be the
    case.'”

  • “‘There is no way we’re going to fix 100% of all the computer systems around the
    world
    in time,’ warned Edward Yardeni    , chief economist with Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, in
    an
    April interview with the technology magazine, FORBES ASAP. ‘My analogy is the
    1973-74
    recession. Just the way a disruption in the supply of oil caused a global recession, a
    disruption in the flow of information, especially if it is critically important information,
    might similarly disrupt global economic activity and produce a recession.'”

  • “The federal government’s Y2K compliance efforts recently received a ‘D-minus’ grade by
    the
    House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, chaired by
    Representative Steve Horn of California.”

  • “What has the Administration’s technology point man, Vice President Al Gore,
    been
    doing for the past five years? … At its core, this is not a technology crisis; it is a
    leadership crisis.”

  • “We have the technology to fix or replace every computer and software program affected by
    Y2K, though it will be expensive. Technical corrections are estimated to cost between $300
    billion and $600 billion globally. Litigation, lost business and bankruptcies could drive the
    costs over $1 trillion.”

  • “Distracted by scandals and side-tracked by questionable crises like global
    warming, the
    Clinton-Gore Administration is failing to insure that vital government computers will be
    fixed in time. Nor are they impressing the American public and foreign governments
    with the urgency of this crisis. Why such silence? Are they trying to limit public concern
    until after the mid-term elections?     The stakes are too high for such partisan political
    games.    “

  • “With the Clinton-Gore Administration AWOL, Congress must urgently fill this
    leadership
    vacuum.     Increase defense funding to speed up compliance. Create Y2K compliance
    penalties
    and incentives for key federal agencies. Require the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    (which itself received a ‘D-minus’ grade for Y2K compliance) to develop contingency plans
    for major disruptions in vital services. Move fast. Time is short.“

Koskinen’s Response

As it happened, Friday was also the occasion for a luncheon address by Mr. Koskinen — a
former
OMB official appointed last February to become chairman of the President’s Council on Year
2000 Conversion (the so-called Y2K “Czar”)(2) — sponsored
by the Washington Chapter of the
Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA). Czar
Koskinen’s
remarks largely validated Mr. Forbes’ critique: They were long on upbeat assessments of all that
is being done to deal with the “problem” and very short on evidence that there will, as a result of
the Millennium Bug, shortly be serious disruptions in both critical federal government functions or
private sector activities upon which public health, safety and economic viability depend.

This performance, with its “whistling past the graveyard” tenor, stands in stark contrast to the
specific indicators of looming disaster cited in the Forbes memo. These include:

  • “Only 63% of the 7,850 federal computer systems deemed ‘mission critical’ — that is, vital to
    protecting U.S. national security, health, safety, education, transportation, and financial and
    emergency management — will be ready on 1 January 2000.”

  • “Five Cabinet-level departments (Defense, Education, Transportation,
    Labor and State)
    received ‘F’ grades. Only 24% of Defense’s mission-critical systems have been
    fixed to date.
    Only 36% are expected to by fixed by 1 January 2000. At this rate, Defense’s mission-critical
    systems won’t be completely fixed until 2009.”

  • “‘The impact of [Year 2000 computer] failures could be widespread, costly, and
    potentially disruptive to military operations worldwide,    ‘ concluded a chilling April 1998
    General Accounting Office report. ‘In an August 1997 operational exercise, the Global
    Command and Control System failed testing when the date was rolled over to the Year 2000.
    GCCS is deployed at 700 sites worldwide and is used to generate a common operating
    picture
    of the battlefield for planning, executing, and managing military operations.     The U.S., and
    its allieswould be unable to orchestrate a Desert Storm-type engagement in the Year 2000 if
    the problem is not corrected.'”

  • “Serious problems face the private sector, too. According to March surveys by the
    Information Technology Association of America     and The Y2K
    Group:
    • 94% of information technology managers see the Y2K computer issue as a ‘crisis’;
    • 44% of American companies have already experienced Y2K computer
      problems;
    • 83% of U.S. Y2K transition project managers expect the Dow Jones Industrial
      Average to fall by at least 20% as the crisis begins to unfold.      “

Awfully Late in the Game for ‘Outreach’

Remarking that there were only 595 days left before 1 January 2000, href=”#N_3_”>(3) the “Czar” employed the
euphemism “outreach” to describe his principal focus at the moment. By this
term, he evidently
means an effort to educate the public and private sectors about the implications of the Y2K
syndrome and the need to take corrective action — without unduly alarming his
audiences. He
emphasized that he saw such outreach as best being accomplished by working with the federal
agencies and through them, with their suppliers, contacts and relevant interest groups.

This “outreach” (or “prosletyzing”) phase would be, in Mr. Koskinen’s
words, followed by
three others: “monitoring,” “reviewing contingencies” and “crisis
management.” Aspects of
this first phase to which the “Czar” called particular attention were his efforts to: induce some 35
federal agencies and regulatory organizations to communicate about the
Millennium Bug with
their constituencies, and to identify gaps in the outreach effort; address
corporate concerns about
anti-trust and liability issues that are interfering with
information-sharing and coordinated,
industry-wide initiatives; task U.S. ambassadors to become U.S. government
points-of-contact
on Y2K matters for their host governments; discussing it at multinational summit
meetings
(e.g., the recent Hemispheric Summit in Chile and this week-end’s so-called “G-8” meeting in the
United Kingdom); and encouraging the United Nations to address the state of preparedness in
member countries.

Interestingly, of the “outreach” measures Koskinen mentioned, the one that conveyed the
greatest
sense of urgency about the Y2K problem was a visit he recently made to bond-rating
agencies in
New York. He remarked that, “If I can’t get bond issuers’ attention [concerning the
Millennium Bug] through other means, I probably can do so by threatening to lower their
ratings.”

As evidence of the seriousness with which the Clinton Administration takes his portfolio, Mr.
Koskinen recalled a remark made by Vice President Gore at a Cabinet meeting in January 1998 at
which the President and Mr. Gore impressed upon those present that they must regard Y2K as
“their problem.” He quoted the Veep as saying: “One of you will be the
poster child for failed
federal systems. Which one will it be?”

Shifting the Blame from Clinton-Gore

After Koskinen completed his remarks, he took a question from the Center for Security
Policy’s
director, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. Noting the emphasis placed on outreach by the “Czar,” Mr.
Gaffney asked why it was that no use had been made to date of the most obvious
and far-and-away most effective mechanism available to the Administration for
raising public
consciousness about the Y2K crisis — namely, the two people absolutely certain to be the
“poster children” for the coming debacle, Bill Clinton and Al Gore? Mr. Gaffney
called Mr.
Koskinen’s attention to the Forbes memo and its speculation that perhaps the reason for such
top-level silence on the issue (outside of closed-door Cabinet meetings and presidential councils)
may
be a deliberate decision to wait until after the 1998 mid-term elections. Should that be the case,
the Center’s director observed that six irrecoverable months could be wasted before the “bully
pulpit” was used as it should be to raise an urgent alarm with the American people.

Mr. Koskinen’s response was most illuminating. He said that he had seen the Forbes memo
and
decried its author as “the first person to try to make a partisan issue out of the Y2K problem.”
The “Czar” actually went so far as to decry Mr. Forbes’ memorandum as “explicitly partisan” — a
rather remarkable misrepresentation since, as noted above, the memo actually expressly states that
“The stakes are too high for such partisan political games” as “trying to limit public
concern until after the mid-term elections.”

Perhaps inadvertently, however, Mr. Koskinen answer may have disclosed the
Clinton-Gore
game-plan for limiting the political damage likely to be inflicted by the Y2K debacle: Try
to fob off onto the Congress at least some of the responsibility for the coming
crisis — and
obscure the Administration’s “leadership vacuum” that has, over the past five-and-a-half years of
this presidency, resulted in the adoption of few of the steps needed to avert this
most-accurately-forecast disaster. As the “Czar” put it: In contrast to Mr. Forbes, “the
congressional leadership
understands that we are all in this thing together.” He asserted that “the American people will not
make a distinction between the executive and legislative branches” in assigning responsibility for
failures to deal with the coming crisis.

The Bottom Line

One thing is sure: All other things being equal, John Koskinen will be proven right.
If the
Congress fails to heed Steve Forbes’ call for it to fill the “leadership vacuum” on the Y2K
crisis, it will appear equally culpable for the inaction that will bring great grief starting in
early 1999. Since — in the absence of executive branch action — the legislature can only
do so
much to arouse the Nation and prepare for deadly contingencies, it behooves the Republican-led
Congress to do what it can. At the same time, it must demand that the Clinton Administration do
its part now to limit the Y2K-related damage, while holding it (and particularly, its
self-designated point-man on computer issues, Al Gore) fully responsible for the failure to
do so
before now.

– 30 –

1. See the Casey Institute Press Release entitled
Casey Symposium Shows Need for
Security-Minded Approach to Asian Financial Crisis and Other Global Challenges
(No. 98-R
77, 5 May 1998).

2. See the Casey Institute Perspective entitled
Bridge to Nowhere: Inattention to the
‘Millennium Bug’ Threatens the Nation’s Security, Economy in the 21st Century
(No. 98-C 24, 6 February 1998).

3. N.B. Mr. Koskinen did not address the problem noted by Mr.
Forbes that there will be
substantially less time until financial data begins to be affected by the Y2K “bug.”