Remarks

Good afternoon.  It’s an honor to address the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, and I applaud the organization for fostering the type of debate, discussion and free exchange of ideas that can contribute to an enlightened international strategy.

It’s also sobering to set forth my views at such a critical juncture.  I can’t think of another period in my lifetime when American actions abroad have had such a profound effect on our people and our future as a nation.

As some of you may be aware, I have a particular stake in an intelligent foreign policy.
My father was an economist from Kenya, my mother, an international development specialist from Kansas.  I was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, before moving to the continental United States to attend college.  In grade school, I was a Protestant child attending Catholic school in a majority Muslim country.

My own life experience has taught me the interconnectedness of our world, the common threads that link disparate nations and cultures.

So I speak from the heart as well as the head when I tell you that our nation is served by being part of the world, and not apart from it.

American leadership has been a mighty force for human progress.  The steady march of democracy and free enterprise across the globe speaks to the steadfastness of our leadership and the power of our ideals.

Today, we face new and frightful challenges, especially the threat of terror. 

Never has it been more important for America to lead wisely, to shrewdly project power and wield influence on behalf of liberty and security. 

Unfortunately, I fear our once great influence is waning, a victim of misguided policies and impetuous actions.   Never has the United States possessed so much power, and never has the United States had so little influence to lead.

Sadly, today, much of the world no longer listens to the United States.

On September 12th, 2001, the banner headline in Le Monde read ‘We are all Americans.’
Just think about that – a French newspaper expressing such support less than three years ago.   And think about how we have squandered that good will since then and what we could have done with it in building support of common goals.

In forming a “coalition of the willing” in Iraq that failed to include the most capable and sophisticated of our allies—France, Germany, Turkey, among others—the United States increased exponentially the risks and costs of the war.

The absence of international support not only weakened our credibility and moral authority; it also made the occupation more difficult and dangerous.

Even worse, we undermined moderate Muslim leaders who were receptive to American ideals and leadership. Terrorists have had a recruiting bonanza with the images of slain children and civilians, the pictures of torture and sexual humiliation at Abu Gharib prison, the image of an oil-rich Arab state under U.S. occupation.

As we know from last week’s Senate report on U.S. intelligence failures, the very reasons we presented to the world for going to war in Iraq were also wrong.  The credibility of the United States, its most important asset in wielding influence and leadership in the world, has been damaged for generations to come.

There is a well-known story from the beginning of the Cuban missile crisis when Dean Acheson, who was serving as special envoy to brief French President deGaulle, offered to document the American case by presenting satellite photos of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba.  The normally contentious deGaulle shrugged and replied, “No, the word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”

That kind of confidence in American leadership will be difficult to restore.

So will the willingness of our partners to join us in attacking a host of other global problems.  The unilateralism of the Bush administration, in all aspects of American foreign policy, has added to the burden of restoring American prestige.

This Administration walked away from a host of efforts to promote international security, environmental protection, and human rights, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide.

In fact, any international obligation that requires compromise, that in any way restricts our ability to act unilaterally, has been rejected.  Some see this as conservative.  In fact it is radical—the abandonment of 50 years of American principles practiced by Democratic and Republican presidents alike.

I do not suggest that we cede any of our sovereign rights.  Multilateralism is not an end in itself.  We don’t pursue cooperation for the sake of cooperation alone.  It is in our national interest to work with others to accomplish national goals. 

With American troops in more than 100 countries, it is in our national interest to observe the Geneva Convention so that we do not diminish the potential protection of our troops in those nations.

With the threat of terrorism on U.S. soil and abroad, it is in our national interest to work with others to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention so that we protect our citizens from terrorism.

With all that is at stake when we do not have stable nations and governments around the world, it is in our national interest to support democracy building.

And, where the stakes are the highest—in the war on terror--we cannot possibly succeed without extraordinary international cooperation.    Effective international police actions require the highest degree of intelligence sharing, planning and collaborative enforcement.

The globalization of the economy also means our self-interest is tied to cooperation and the ability to effectively negotiate conflict.   It is in our national interest to work to ensure that economies do not collapse and infant democracies do not fail as we have seen failed states become breeding grounds for belligerents, even terrorists.  Robust and fair international commerce can increase living standards here and abroad, while buttressing new democratic institutions. 

Finally, American leadership and international cooperation are critical to attacking systemic problems that span borders--whether it’s the growing threat of AIDS, nuclear proliferation or environmental degradation.
 
But just when the need for American influence and leadership is the greatest, the evidence of our new lack of influence is manifest. 

The effort to rebuild Iraq has no new recruits among nations.  NATO rejected our request for additional personnel and resources to secure free and fair elections in Afghanistan.  And when the Bush administration rightly sought the collaboration of our allies to prevent the starvation and slaughter of innocents in the Darfur region of Sudan, we were largely ignored.

None of us, as a citizen or an elected official, should just curse the darkness.  So, let me tell you where I’d try and light some candles.

To begin with, we must confront the immediate challenge involved in returning sovereignty to the Iraqi people.   Although I loudly and vigorously opposed the war in Iraq, I understand that it was an American commitment, not a Republican one.  

Now that we are there, all of us want to see the mission succeed.  The stakes are enormous for the world and our own security. 

If Iraq can find its way to a reasonable semblance of a modern, reformed and democratic state, it will reap benefits in the region for generations to come.  If it disintegrates into chaos, it will plant the seeds of an even greater and more poisonous radicalism.

We must leave behind a government that has enough legitimacy and political support
from all three factions—the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia - to survive on its own.  The best path to that is through free and fair elections and a constitution that preserves minority rights.  For these elections to take place next year, as scheduled, there must be sufficient security in the country and, therefore, we must maintain a strong military presence while encouraging the interim government to hold elections as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, we desperately need international assistance in Iraq in order to succeed.   This will not be easy, but it is possible.  It will require us not only to persuade other countries that we share a common interest in preventing failure, but also to give them a meaningful voice and role in Iraqi affairs.  We should give them fair access to the multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts.  Let them be a part of putting Iraq's profitable oil industry back together again.  In return, they must forgive Saddam's multi-billion dollar debts to their countries and help pay the reconstruction bill.  We should also be giving other nations a leadership role in pursuing our wider strategic goals in the region.   Restoring our influence, and our standing in the world, is thus a critical component of securing that cooperation. 

A second top global priority is the fight against the spread of weapons of mass destruction.  The United States must build and lead an international consensus for early preventive action—before the necessity of force—to secure existing weapons of mass destruction and collateral nuclear material.

I believe there is no better dollar for dollar national security investment than the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program for the Soviet Union.  More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia still has nearly 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough nuclear material to produce 50,000 more.  At the current pace of spending - a $450 million funding level - it will take 13 years to secure all the potential bomb material from the old Soviet Republic.  With increased funding and focus, we can do it in four.

At the same time, in order to ensure that these efforts are of real value, we must strengthen global rules against proliferation.  The existing Non-Proliferation Treaty allows countries to develop all the building blocks of a nuclear program and then withdraw from the treaty without penalty-- once they are ready to create enriched uranium or produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.  International nuclear powers, like the United States, should help non-nuclear countries develop nuclear energy by providing them with uranium, while maintaining control of the fuel cycle so that spent nuclear material can be taken back and stored securely.  This must occur so that it cannot be used to build weapons.  Automatic UN sanctions should apply to any nation seeking to escape these controls.

And, when there are countries that have been proven to have the capability to build weapons of mass destruction, the United States must lead in the efforts to deflect them from that dangerous path.

We have seen this in Iran, which the Bush administration has correctly targeted as a dangerous cheater in the nuclear game.  According to a report released by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency last month, Iran is continuing to assemble parts and materials needed for building nuclear weapons—in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory. 

What better illustration is there of the importance of the United States to be able to lead and work with other nations than in Iran, where the United States can work together with Russia and European nations who supply the expertise and business connections there.

A third issue crying for attention is North Korea.  This Administration spent three and a half years refusing to negotiate directly with North Korea, in the name of a misguided sense of moral purity. The consequences of that delay are now evident.  Because we refused to talk, experts believe North Korea may now be close to having six to eight nuclear weapons.  Because we refused to talk, many more Koreans faced starvation by their own government.  Because we refused to talk, China and South Korea are beginning to act on their own. That is not my conception of morality. 

While it is important to have backing from the partners in the Six-Party talks, bilateral talks are a key to progress.  The United States must insist on complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear capability, while facilitating a reform agenda that is broader than denuclearization.  Only genuine negotiations will determine whether diplomacy can bring an end to Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions or whether economic pressure and possibly even more forceful measures will be necessary to convince Pyongyang that its nuclear weapons program poses an unacceptable risk. 

This brings us to a fourth challenge – our relationship with China.  China’s role in the North Korean nuclear standoff illustrates its growing importance in both diplomatic and economic affairs.  In the new China, we face both a threat and an opportunity.

The United States should be firm on issues that divide us—like Taiwan—while flexible on issues that could unite us.  We should insist on labor standards and human rights, the opening of Chinese markets fully to American goods, and the fulfillment of legal contracts with American businesses—but without triggering a trade war that could prove disastrous.

China’s growth has been so explosive, it’s factories and people fueling such massive economic activity, that any downward spiral there would reverberate throughout the world.   In the words of New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman, “the world cannot tolerate any sort of prolonged instability in China.  If the China bubble bursts, it will be the mother of all burst bubbles.”

Fifth, American influence and leadership is critically required with respect to the AIDS epidemic.

This week’s alarming report by the Joint United Nations Program on HIV-AIDS showed epidemic levels of new AIDS cases in certain provinces of China and India—the world’s two most populous nations.  Although overall national infection rates are now low, if new infections grow at rates even close to those we saw in Africa, the world would not only be faced with another humanitarian crisis.  There would also be a tremendous destabilizing effect for the world economy, and in a fragile region of the world. 

Without American leadership and influence, how can we prevent this mounting epidemic from continuing its steady, destabilizing and destructive movement around the globe?

The United States must give its fair share to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.  President Bush’s budget this year actually cuts the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund by 64%.  As Senator, I will work to hold the president to his word and fully fund our commitment to the war on AIDS.

I also recognize that fighting the war on AIDS will take more than money.  American drug companies also hold the key to combating the scourge of AIDS.  Today, our government requires FDA approval of all generic drug cocktails purchased with US funds-- despite the fact that a generic drug approval system is already in place under the auspices of the World Health Organization. 

The United States must take a leadership role in making generic drugs accessible to AIDS victims around the world.  There is strong evidence that this is needed.  A breakthrough reported last week by the New England Journal of Medicine shows that a new two-drug treatment for pregnant women with AIDS prevents transmittal of the virus to the newborn infants in 98 percent of cases.  U.S. policies which ensure the provision of generic or affordable drugs to stop the spread of AIDS to infants, and sustain the lives of mothers to care for their healthy babies, are critical to turning the tide.
 
Sixth, America’s moral authority and credibility will be needed, now more than ever, in the quest for a Middle East peace.

Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy.  The Administration’s failure to be consistently involved in helping Israel achieve peace with the Palestinians has been both wrong for our friendship with Israel, as well as badly damaging to our standing in the Arab world.

I do not pretend to have all the answers to this vexing problem, and untangling the issues involved is an appropriate topic for a separate speech.  What I can say is this – not only must we be consistent, but we will not succeed unless we have the cooperation of the European Union and the Arab States in pressing for reforms within the Palestinian community.

Seventh, and closer to home, the United States has a powerful interest in sustaining democratic reforms in Latin America.  We must restore the United States’ reputation as a defender of democracy in this region. 

The U.S. must continue to advocate, in word and action, multilateral action to support democracy.  If the citizens of these countries do not see the economic benefits of democracy in their daily lives, their support for democratic governance can erode rapidly.  That is when demagogues, like Hugo Chavez, will take advantage of those economic inequalities.  We must work toward meaningful democracies, through fair labor standards and the bolstering of the rule of law, to bring about real economic justice. 

And, in every region, we must remember that our armed forces cannot impose democracies.  We must support those brave men and women fighting for democracy in their own countries – whether it is in China or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.   Expanded trade, technical assistance, aid for infrastructure development—all these things can help build and sustain the broad middle classes necessary to secure democracy. 

Now, while America has historically led by the force of its ideas and ideals, as well as by force of arms, our fundamental obligation must still be to maintain the best, most sophisticated military in the world.   Our military must be able to meet the new threats of the 21st Century. 

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have reduced the pace of military transformation and have revealed our lack of preparation for defensive and stability operations.   This Administration has overextended our military - as evidenced by the recent decision to recall 5,600 ready reservists to Iraq for 18 months.  And, by grossly underestimating the costs of war, the Bush Administration has been stealing from tomorrow’s budget to pay for today’s war costs.

We must make sure we have enough troops and that those soldiers are given the best equipment and training available. 

The foundation of the All-Volunteer force is that they will serve with honor, bravery, and integrity and that, in return, we will ensure they will be treated with the honor and respect they deserve.   Since 9/11, the U.S. has embarked on the largest call-up of members of the Guard and Reserves since World War II.   Forty percent of those serving in Iraq are members of the Guard and Reserves. 

We must ensure that members of our National Guard and our reservists have access to affordable, quality health care.   While active duty members receive free health care through TRICARE – the military health care service – reservists only have access to it for a limited time surrounding their active duty service.   That is not honoring our troops.

 
We must also ensure that our activated troops do not have to worry about having enough money to take care of themselves and their families, that they do not have to forfeit a good education when they are called to active duty, and that our military families receive the support they need. 

Along with strengthening our military, we must strengthen our intelligence capabilities.   In recent years, through international cooperation, our government has had some success in tracking the terrorists’ financial resources, arresting important terrorist leaders and, thus, making our people more secure.  We should be thankful for that. 

But, to succeed in the war on terror, we must have extraordinary international cooperation on all fronts, while reforming our domestic intelligence capabilities in a manner that balances the risks of impeding on the civil liberties of our citizens.  We must make sure that our intelligence sharing capabilities are improved across agencies and between federal and local law enforcement.  We must provide the needed resources to our first responders to ensure their access to critical information at the critical times.

And we must give the Director of Intelligence the authority he or she needs over budget and personnel to be effective and accountable.  I recognize that this is not an easy political move – there will remain turf battles within the Executive Branch and Congress.   Such reforms will require a determined effort by the President, the congressional leadership, and members of the Senate, and I will be supportive of such efforts. 

Finally, our national security strategy must include a plan to free America from its dependence on foreign oil.  In an increasingly more hostile and dangerous world, neither American security, nor our economic potential, can afford to be held hostage by those half a world away because our nation is too dependent on others for our energy.   This requires concrete steps to move us toward energy independence including requiring that 20% of the nation’s power supply portfolio come from renewable sources like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy by 2020, and that a percentage of our nation’s fuel supply is provided by renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

Addressing the commencement class at New School University in May, former Kennedy presidential aide Ted Sorensen said, “Our greatest strength has long been not merely our military might but our moral authority. Our surest protection against assault from abroad has been not all our guards, gates and guns or even our two oceans, but our essential goodness as a people…”

In every region of the globe, our foreign policy should promote traditional American ideals: democracy and human rights; free and fair trade and cultural exchanges; and development of institutions that ensure broad middle classes within market economies.

It is our commonality of interests in the world that can ultimately restore our influence and win back the hearts and minds necessary to defeat terrorism and project American values around the globe.  Human aspirations are universal—for dignity, for freedom, for the opportunity to improve the lives of our families. 

Let us recognize what unites us across borders and build on the strength of this blessed country.  Let us embrace our history and our legacy.   Let us not only define our values in words and carry them out in deeds.

We still have the chance to correct recent missteps that have put our principles and legacy in question.  Indeed, it is imperative to our nation’s standing and security to do so.  It will take a change of attitude and direction in our national leadership—and a new assertiveness by Congress—to restore the values and judgment that made and kept our nation the world’s beacon of hope and freedom.

I hope to actively participate in the process.  And I look forward to benefiting from the work and wise counsel of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations as we address the great challenges facing our nation—and our planet.

Thank you very much.