The William Cohen Lecture: Combining Force and Diplomacy To Secure America's Future

US Department of State Dispatch, Nov, 1999 by Madeleine K. Albright

Here, the military deterrent provided by our armed forces and the technological edge they enjoy are indispensable. But we will all sleep better if our deterrent is never used. The diplomatic challenge is to create a political environment in which serious military threats to our country are less likely to arise.

That is why, since 1992, our support has helped deactivate almost 5,000 nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union; eliminated nuclear weapons from three former Soviet Republics; and purchased more than 60 tons of highly enriched uranium that could have been used by terrorists or outlaw states to build such arms.

We are also helping 30,000 former Soviet weapons scientists find employment in peaceful commercial ventures, so they are not tempted to sell their expertise to those who might do us harm.

We are taking steps, as well, to protect ourselves from the new threats posed by ballistic missiles. Here, the military job is to maintain our deterrent and develop the best defensive technology possible. The diplomatic job is to ensure that in responding to new dangers, we do not act rashly and aggravate or revive old ones.

Finally, we have called upon the Senate to approve a treaty that would ban nuclear explosive tests of any size, for any reason, in any place--for all time. As we speak, the outcome of debate is uncertain. The Senate could vote to delay consideration or not to approve American participation.

The comprehensive test ban has been a goal of U.S. Presidents since Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy. It promises to slow both the development and spread of new and more dangerous nuclear weapons. The treaty has been widely endorsed by our military and scientific leaders because it would make our nation more secure and our world safer.

The United States today has no plans and no need to conduct nuclear explosive tests. It is plainly in our interests to discourage others from doing so, as well. The treaty would do that by banning tests and establishing a global monitoring system to detect cheaters.

However the Senate votes, the world should not doubt America's commitment to reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. We will continue both to advance our program for assuring the reliability of our nuclear deterrent and to observe a moratorium on nuclear explosive tests. We will continue to support the international monitoring system the treaty would establish.

We will persist in urging others to join the agreement and to refrain from tests prohibited by it. And surely there will be further discussion of the merits of the treaty here at home, because there is no question that this landmark pact would serve both our national interests and the cause of world peace.

A second example of where we use force and diplomacy to safeguard American security is by striving to reduce the risks posed by regional conflicts. Because the United States has unique capabilities and standing, it is natural that others will turn to us in time of emergency. In one sense, that is gratifying, but it also leads to difficult, damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't, choices.