President Clinton's National Security Adviser
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger was driven in a bullet-proof
White House limousine on November 4 to address the
members of the Bilderberg Steering Committee who
were dining at the Library of Congress. The Library's
magnificent Great Hall was an appropriate venue for a
meeting of this 45-year-old elite group of Atlantic
community movers and shakers. Democrats David
Rockefeller and Vernon Jordan Jr. and Republican Henry
Kissinger were on hand to greet the guests.
Berger's speech was entitled "Strengthening the
Bipartisan Center: An Internationalist Agenda for America." He identified Clinton's goal as an "internationalist
agenda," stated that "bipartisanism" is the road to take us
there, and warned that "isolationism" is the dragon to be
slain along the way.
"Bipartisanism" at the top level in both parties
facilitates Clinton's foreign policy objectives. Berger
bragged that the Administration has worked with both
Republicans and Democrats in Congress to enlarge
NATO, to pass NAFTA which is now to be expanded by
similar trade bills for Africa and the Caribbean Basin, to
join the World Trade Organization, to ratify treaties such
as the Chemical Weapons Convention, and to finance
"engagements" in the Balkans and "a host of other
Asserting that "global leadership is not divisible,"
Berger said that treaties must be used to "establish
standards of international conduct." America must
respond to local conflicts; not all of them, of course, just
the ones that the internationalists choose.
Berger asserted that "the only acceptable position for
the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation" is to
support these missions, not only with our UN vote but by
paying the costs. He complained that Congress was "not
meeting our obligations to the World Bank and IMF,"
was conditioning the payment of UN dues on unrelated
issues, and has cut our request for peacekeeping by 60%.
Pledging more U.S. handouts and interventions,
Berger whined about "a small group of Senators" who are
responsible for the steady decline in our international
affairs budget. He particularly complained that Congress
was "refusing to fund a historic debt relief initiative"
which Clinton was demanding.
Clinton had been demanding that the American
taxpayers pay the debt of 41 nations including 33 in
Africa. Majority Leader Tom DeLay called this sending
U.S. taxpayer dollars overseas "to subsidize the corruption and mismanagement of foreign countries" and
robbing the Social Security surplus for "Ghana versus
Clinton vetoed the foreign aid bill on October 18
because its handouts were 14% less than he wanted,
calling it "another sign of the new isolationism." After
some heated closed-door sessions with Administration
negotiators threatening to close down the government,
Congress added another $799 million to the $12.7 billion
foreign aid bill. Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-AL) commented that "every time somebody walks in the White
House with a turban on his head," the President offers
them money. Callahan said he was going to "buy me one
of those turbans" and seek money for senior citizens.
Berger called opponents of Clinton's agenda a
"dominant minority," a strange oxymoron. He ruefully
recognized that these opponents have a "coherent philosophy" which sees "international spending as inherently
disconnected to America's interests, views most multilateral enterprises with suspicion and considers most
difficult international endeavors . . . as likely to fail and
therefore not worth trying."
Berger urged his internationalist audience "to recognize when our beliefs are being threatened" and to
"defend them together."
The Clinton Administration has, indeed, had significant success in coopting Republicans to support its
global agenda in the name of bipartisanship. On February 11, a long list of officials from the Ford and Bush
Administrations joined with powerful CEOs, who are the
source of soft money for the Republican Party, to co-sign
a two-page ad in the New York Times demanding that
Congress immediately vote for four of Clinton's goals.
Attacking "isolationism" and the "drift toward
disengagement from global leadership," these dignitaries
demanded (1) more tax handouts to the International
Monetary Fund, (2) use of the Exchange Stabilization
Fund to prop up foreign currencies, (3) $1 billion in
"back dues" to the United Nations, and (4) Fast Track
trade authority for Clinton. Republican signers of these
demands included President Gerald Ford, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig,
former National Security Advisors Brent Scowcroft and
Robert McFarlane, former U.S. Trade Representatives
Bill Brock and Carla Hills, and the heads of scores of
multinationals and bank corporations.
We also got a good look at the bipartisan corporate
elite on September 27 when they assembled in Shanghai
on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of Chairman
Mao's Communist Party takeover of mainland China.
The U.S. delegation was awesome: the CEOs of hundreds of Fortune 500 corporations including Time-Warner, General Motors, Ford, AT&T, Procter &
Gamble, Boeing, Rockwell and Cargill. On hand to
provide helpful tips were experienced world travelers:
Republicans Henry Kissinger and Carla Hills, Democrats
Robert Rubin and Mickey Kantor.
It would be a mistake to think that Clinton's foreign
policy is merely the result of improvisations or "wag the
dog" coverups. Clinton has repeatedly enunciated his
vision of where he is trying to take America. In a speech
to the United Nations on September 22, 1997, he said he
wants to take us into a "web of institutions and arrangements" for the 21st century. On CBS Morning News on
July 30, 1999, he said he wants "to promote the integration of all the democracies."
That's where the "bipartisan center" is taking us.
The question for Americans is, is that where we want to
go? Is it where Texas Governor George W. Bush wants
to take us? On November 28 on ABC's This Week, his
foreign policy guru Condoleezza Rice said, "He will
bring a new Bipartisan Center to foreign policy."
Bipartisanship Hits Bump in the Road
When the Republican Senate defeated the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on October 13, Bill Clinton, Al
Gore and the media all staged tantrums. Clinton accused
Republicans of "partisan politics" and "a new isolationism," and Gore chimed in by calling Republicans "right-wing extremist" and "breathtakingly irresponsible."
Now we know what those epithets mean. If Republicans acquiesce in Clinton's policies, they are praised as
"bipartisan" and "responsible," while if they oppose his
policies they are "partisan," "isolationist," "irresponsible," and part of a "right-wing conspiracy."
It was Clinton, not Republicans, who tried to turn
the Test Ban Treaty from a national security issue into
partisan politics. Clinton substituted name-calling
because he lacked rational arguments to rebut the six
former Secretaries of Defense and two former Chairmen
of the Joint Chiefs who opposed this dangerous treaty.
When the Democrats even attacked three certified
internationalists, Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and
John McCain (R-AZ) and Henry Kissinger, as "isolationist," it's clear that this word is not a rational argument
but a partisan smear epithet.
The phoniness of the "isolationist" charge is also
shown by the way the Clinton Administration uses the
term to attack Republicans who oppose Clinton's
policies on Kosovo and the Test Ban Treaty, while the
Clintonistas are totally isolationist about Communist
China's activities in Panama. The protection of the great
Panama Canal from Communist China is exactly where
the United States should be "engaged," but the "Bipartisan Center" spokesmen are greeting the problem of the
Chinese leases at each end of the Canal with stony
The media blamed Republicans for setting a trap in
the vote about the Test Ban Treaty. But the Democratic
leadership had threatened to shut down the Senate and
prevent it from transacting any other business unless
Majority Leader Trent Lott scheduled a vote; so Lott
gave them their vote and the Democrats crashed.
Contrary to the torrents of outrage pouring forth
from Clinton lackeys, the world isn't coming to an end
because the Senate exercised its constitutional "advice
and consent" power to reject one of Clinton's flawed,
foolish and unverifiable agreements that would put U.S.
sovereignty and security in the noose of foreign control.
The world did not stop turning when the Senate refused
to ratify Jimmy Carter's SALT II treaty, and we would
be a lot safer today if the Senate had rejected Carter's
giveaway Panama Canal treaties.
Bipartisanship is not the answer to foreign policy
challenges. Our Constitution wasn't designed for
Senators to "get along" or "work together" in bipartisan
happy-talk, and it's a perversion of the system when
both parties support the same policies. Our Constitution
was designed for constant controversy because that is
the way we can maintain our freedom and independence,
Self-government demands vigorous advocacy of
different points of view on foreign as well as domestic
policies. After both parties make their policy recommendations, the people can make known their decision.
Bipartisanship has betrayed the American taxpayers
and our armed services again and again. The leadership
of both parties supported a long list of crucial policies
that never enjoyed majority support among the voters.
Bipartisanship used enormous sums of taxpayers'
money to bail out corrupt foreign regimes, including
Mexico, South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia. Billions
went through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to
Russia where mob-style politicians pocketed our tax
dollars in their secret bank accounts.
Bipartisanship rams through big appropriations
every year for all those unaccountable international
lending agencies, including the IMF, the World Bank,
and the ripoff called the Overseas Private Investment
Bipartisanship is paralyzing all efforts to deal with
our problems with China, probably our biggest enemy in
the coming decades. Neither party wants to talk about
China's human rights violations, espionage, political
contributions to Clinton, or $60 billion trade surplus that
is financing its military-industrial complex.
Bipartisan folly prevents the Republican leadership
from telling the American people the truth about the
humanitarian disaster and foreign-policy failure of
Clinton's wars and peacekeeping operations in Kosovo,
Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti.
We can see a good example of how foolish bipartisanship is funded when we note that former Republican
National Chairman Haley Barbour became a paid
lobbyist for Ted Turner's campaign to persuade Republicans in Congress to vote $1 billion in alleged unpaid
dues to the United Nations. Barbour even ran a full-page ad in the conservative Weekly Standard in support
of this goal.
Bipartisanship has built a fence around extravagant
federal spending programs so none is being reduced.
The bipartisan leadership couldn't even bring itself to
cut the National Endowment for the Arts despite its
current blasphemies at the Brooklyn Museum of Art.
Clinton's treaties are dangerous and costly for
America. Bipartisanship is a Clinton ploy to coopt
Republicans into becoming a party to his mistakes. The
voters are looking for leaders who will stand tall for
American national security, and the vote against the Test
Ban Treaty is a step in the right direction.
The Truth Leaks Out About Kosovo
The embarrassing truth is starting to come out that
the Clinton Administration lied to us about Kosovo
atrocities which were supposed to justify the bombing of
Yugoslavia. In five months of investigation and exhumation of the dead in Kosovo, United Nations war
crimes investigators have found only 2,108 bodies.
That's the figure confirmed and reported to the UN
Security Council by the chief prosecutor for the UN war
crimes tribunal, Carla Del Ponte. (New York Times, 11-11-99)
Before the bombing, Clinton and Defense Secretary
William Cohen repeatedly tossed out figures of 100,000
dead, and the State Department even claimed that up to
500,000 Kosovars were feared dead. (Ibid.)
Pathologist Emilio Perez Pujol, who led a Spanish
forensic team looking for bodies, found only 187, mostly
in individual graves. He calculated that "the final figure
of dead in Kosovo will be 2,500 at the most. This
includes lots of strange deaths that can't be blamed on
anyone in particular." (London Sunday Times, 10-31-99)
The British, who seem to be more interested in
getting to the truth than Congress, are pressuring Foreign Secretary Robin Cook to answer claims that Tony
Blair's government misled the public over the scale of
deaths in order to justify NATO's bombing of Belgrade.
Alice Mahon, the Labor MP who chairs the Balkans
committee, said that the Kosovo deaths were tragic but
did not justify the killing of Belgrade civilians by
NATO's bombing. (Ibid.)
Lacking a constitutional or national security basis for
his Yugoslav adventure, Clinton relied wholly on the
humanitarian argument. That rationale has fallen apart
because the numbers of Milosevic's crimes in Kososo
were so grossly inflated, the indiscriminate damage done
by the Clinton/NATO bombing raids was so vast, and all
the people he said he was helping are far worse off than
before the bombing started.
The Clinton/NATO bombing was carried on for 78
days with total disregard for human life. The bombs
killed thousands of innocent civilians and even destroyed hospitals and schools. (New York Times, 4-14-99, 4-16-99,
The Clinton/NATO bombing decimated Yugoslavia's economic infrastructure and created an environmental nightmare. Not only are water and power
systems destroyed, but the lifeline of the region, the
Danube River, is polluted and largely impassable
because of destroyed bridges.
Repeated air strikes on the Serbian town of Pancevo
enveloped the area in clouds of black smoke and flames
for ten days and unleashed tons of chemicals into the air,
water and soil. The fish, produce and water are all
contaminated. (New York Times, 7-14-99)
What was advertised as an air war against Yugoslavia's military capabilities was really a war directed
against the Serbian people. Dropping cluster bombs
from 15,000 feet and firing missiles from many miles
away guaranteed "mistakes" and "collateral damage" and
prove that the targets were civilian as well as military.
U.S. Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Michael Short
admitted that the goal was to break the will of the Serbs
and make them so miserable that they would force
Milosevic to pull out of Kosovo. (London Daily Telegraph,
5-25-99, quoted in Cato Institute's Policy Analysis, 10-25-99)
Estimates of the cost to rebuild the damage range up
to $100 billion (you can bet that American taxpayers
will ultimately be called upon to pay this bill), and the
costs in human misery are incalculable.
The situation in Kosovo, the province Clinton was
supposed to be protecting, is even worse. The danger
from unexploded British and American cluster bombs
and mines is at alarming levels, according to international aid agencies. (New York Times, 8-6-99) Before the
bombing began, there was no humanitarian crisis in
Kosovo. It was only after the U.S. and NATO air strikes
began that the Serbs started to expel Albanians from
The NATO "peacekeeping" force in Kosovo is
completely unable to restrain the revenge-seeking
Albanians who are beating and murdering the Serbs,
even targeting grandmothers (Washington Times, 8-13-99),
and burning their homes and churches. (New York Times, 8-2-99, 11-22-99) More Serb civilians have been slaughtered
in Kosovo than ethnic Albanians before the bombing
began. (David Hackworth column, 8-24-99)
The daily violence continues even though there are
now more NATO troops in Kosovo than Serbs. According to Human Rights Watch, 164,000 Serb civilians have
been driven out of Kosovo. (New York Times, 8-2-99, 8-5-99,
9-13-99, 10-29-99, 11-22-99)
The Clinton-Albright policy is based on the absurd
fantasy that America and NATO can force the Serbs and
Albanians to live together in a multiethnic society.
Neither side wants that, and the attempt to impose our
will means that U.S. troops will play the costly roles of
global cop and social worker indefinitely into the future.
The only people happy about the Yugoslavia debacle
are the globalists who want America to be perpetually
engaged in foreign conflicts. In a speech to the Canadian Parliament, Czech leader Vaclav Havel praised the
Yugoslav war as "an important precedent for the future,"
saying that "state sovereignty must inevitably dissolve"
and that nation-states will be transformed into "civil
administrative units." (The Responsive Community, Summer
When Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy
Berger spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations on
October 21, he described Clinton's foreign policy as
grounded in the policy of "engagement." America will
now be "engaged" in Yugoslavia for the rest of our lives.
Full-page newspaper ads this fall advertised a fake
product called "Binge Beer." There's no such beer; the
ads were an attention-grabbing device to warn college
students of the danger from a popular campus diversion
called binge drinking.
It's not just college students who are foolish enough
to destroy themselves by binging. The Clinton Administration and the Congress cooperate to indulge in binge
banking, a frivolity that is very unhealthy for U.S. taxpayers' pocketbooks.
With the Clinton Administration's encouragement,
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has loaned
Russia $20 billion since 1992. The IMF lent $11.2
billion to Russia in July 1998 shortly before the ruble
was devalued. Russia is eligible for another $4.5 billion
from the IMF over the next year and a half, plus half a
billion dollars from the Export-Import Bank.
Corrupt Russian government officials and their pals
have reportedly sent $10 billion to safe havens outside
of Russia. Some of the money was laundered through
U.S. banks, some deposited in Swiss bank accounts, and
some hidden in secret off-shore companies.
The IMF claims that it doesn't know whether its
funds were improperly diverted because it doesn't
monitor how the money is disbursed after it is transferred to the Russian central bank, and because IMF
funds are immediately commingled with other funds.
When your business arranges a loan with your local
friendly banker, try telling him it's none of his business
what you do with the money.
In a racket misrepresented to Americans as "privatization," whole oil and gas companies were "sold" to Russian
government insiders, such as associates of Viktor
Chernomyrdin. Russian officials with inside knowledge
sold their government securities in 1998, locking in their
profits just before the ruble was devalued.
Commentators are now trying to call the Russian
economic collapse "crony capitalism," but that's an
unfair slur on capitalism. Russian money is controlled
by organized crime and corrupt government officials
who are grabbing the industries, the banks, and the flow
of funds from the United States and international lending
The New York Times described Russian money
laundering through U.S. banks, and how the Russian
economy is in the throes of wholesale gangsterism, graft,
embezzlement, government insiders stealing major
industries, and ruthless manipulation of global monetary
mechanisms. The Times published an analysis piece
titled "What Makes Nations Turn Corrupt?" (8-28-99, 9-02-99) Most people have known the answer to that
question since Lord Acton discovered that "power tends
to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The rush toward the Bipartisan Center, Clinton's
global goals and treaties, Clinton's "engagement" and
"humanitarian warfare" in Yugoslavia/Kosovo, and
the racket of taxpayer handouts to corrupt foreign
governments are all issues that ought to be fully
debated during the 2000 election campaign. Which
presidential candidates will come out against all these
disastrous policies and for defending the sovereignty
of the United States of America?
Phyllis Schlafly is the author of 16 books, including five books on
national defense and foreign policy: The Gravediggers (1964),
Strike From Space (1965), and The Betrayers (1968) covering the
McNamara years; and Kissinger on the Couch (1975) and
Ambush at Vladivostok (1976) covering the Kissinger years. She
was a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the
United States Constitution (1985-1991), by appointment of
President Reagan. She is a lawyer, a syndicated columnist, a
radio commentator, and the president of Eagle Forum.