Hillary Clinton, although not a
candidate for President, gave the following
foreign policy address to the NY Council on
Foreign Relations:
You know, it is a great
opportunity for me here in New York, before this
prestigious body, to speak about where we find
ourselves with respect to foreign policy. And I
think it's appropriate to put it into the context
of a quote that I agree with, that was made by the
former council president, Leslie Gelb, who said
that the purpose of the Council on Foreign
Relations, as an organization, is to promote
American internationalism based on American
interests.
We stand at a point in time
where we are now in the process of redefining both
American internationalism and American interests.
That probably would have been inevitable, because
the process of adjusting to the changes at the end
of the Cold War, the extraordinary advances in
technology and globalization, the spread of so
many problems globally, most prominently
terrorism, would certainly have brought that
about.
But it is also true that given
our reaction to the events of September the 11th
and to our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq and
other problems that we face around the world, what
was a description by Leslie Gelb has become an
imperative, and an imperative not just for those
in elected office, not just in the administration
or the Congress, but, I would argue, for a much
broader debate amongst our citizenry. There's a
role for the private sector to play that I think
has been neglected over the last several years.
There's a role, certainly, for academia and
not-for-profit organizations. There's a role for
every segment of our society.
As we look out around the world
and attempt to define internationalism and
American interests, we certainly have our work cut
out for us. But it is a timely discussion and one
that we ignore at our peril.
When we were attacked on
September the 11th and when we lost nearly 3,000
men, women and children, for many Americans, that
was also a loss of innocence and a sense of
invulnerability. I remain absolutely confident in
our eventual victory over the forces of terror,
but I also believe that we have our work cut out
for us and that what we face is a long-term
challenge that not only is external but internal,
as we define who we are, what our values should be
in the face of this new threat.
It is true that I am confident
about the outcome, but I worry about the cost. I
worry about the price being paid by young men and
women in uniform fighting in difficult terrain. I
worry about our brave first responders, who we
will once again expect to answer the call of duty
should we face another attack on our shores. And I
worry about the fear that I see among so many of
our citizens, a fear that is understandable but
one which, unfortunately, may very well undermine
the values that have made us so strong, so
optimistic, for so long.
As you know, I recently returned
from places where Americans are risking their
lives. Foremost are military forces, but also
civilians who have answered the call of duty as
well. Hundreds have been killed and thousands
grievously injured. With my colleague on the
Senate Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed of
Rhode Island, we were privileged to spend
Thanksgiving with our troops in Afghanistan and
then go on to Iraq. I was especially pleased that
I could visit the 10th Mountain Division soldiers
who are on the front lines in Afghanistan and
could bring over 3,000 letters from school
children here in New York expressing their thanks
and telling the soldiers what it meant to them
that they were there defending their freedom as
well.
I know that a short trip such as
the one that I took is only a snapshot, but it is
a snapshot that both confirmed much of what I
already believed and had learned from the
countless briefings and other committee work and
much of the attention that has been focused on
Iraq and Afghanistan, but it also opened my eyes
and led me to think a little bit differently about
some of what we should be doing.
It is essential that we win this
war against these borderless terrorists, but it
is, I believe, critical that we once again
recommit ourselves to that American
internationalism that I mentioned in the
beginning. For more than a half a century, we know
that we prospered because of a bipartisan
consensus on defense and foreign policy. We must
do more than return to that sensible, cooperative
approach. I think we should be in the midst of
working to reform the institutions and alliances
that we historically have been part of, revamping
agreements that we reached in the past that may no
longer be as timely and effective as we would
hope, working and examining relationships around
the world not because it's a good thing to do, not
because it worked in the 20th century, but because
it remains as essential today as it was in the
past in order to meet the 21st (sic) challenges of
terror and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
We obviously need to build a
world with more friends and fewer terrorists. The
question is, how do we do that? Everyone agrees on
the goal, but what are the strategies most likely
to result in success?
Turning to Iraq, yesterday was a
good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had
finally been captured. Like many of you, I was
glued to the television and the radio as I went
about my daily business. We owe a great debt of
gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our
intelligence services, to all who had a hand in
apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to
justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace
and stability in Iraq will improve.
I was especially pleased that
the capture was led by the 4th Infantry Division,
whom I visited in Kirkuk and had a a briefing from
the commander, General Odierno, and during that
briefing was given some insights into the efforts
to apprehend Saddam. And it's very good news
indeed that they have come to fruition.
This moment, however, cannot be
just about congratulating ourselves and the Iraqi
people for this capture. It should be a moment
where we step back and consider how now to go
forward. What is it we can do today, based on the
circumstances of yesterday, that will strengthen
our hand and move the Iraqis closer to a time when
they can have self-government and create a stable,
free, democratic Iraq?
I was one who supported giving
President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use
force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that
was the right vote. I have had many disputes and
disagreements with the administration over how
that authority has been used, but I stand by the
vote to provide the authority because I think it
was a necessary step in order to maximize the
outcome that did occur in the Security Council
with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And
I also knew that our military forces would be
successful. But what we did not appreciate fully
and what the administration was unprepared for was
what would happen the day after.
It has been a continuing theme
of my criticism and others that we would be
further along, we would have more legitimacy, we
would diminish the opposition and resentment that
is fueling whatever remains of the insurgency if
we had been willing to move to internationalize
our presence and further action in Iraq. I believe
that today. And in fact, I think that we now have
a new opportunity for the administration to do
just that.
We could, if the administration
were to be so inclined, open the door to a
stronger and wider coalition that would help us
rebuild and safeguard Iraq and provide a
transition to self-government. As President Bush
said in his remarks to the nation yesterday, the
capture of Saddam, while extremely important, does
not signal the end of this conflict. The violence
is likely to continue. It's unclear whether it
will spike up or whether it will diminish, but we
know it will remain, and therefore, all Americans
and international aid workers and Iraqis remain at
risk.
So what could we do to try to
take advantage of this moment in time? Well, I
have both some suggestions and some questions.
First, I am worried about the administration's
announced plans to transfer sovereignty to the
Iraqis by next July, the way that those plans have
been announced and how they would proceed. The
process coincides with the first major troop
rotation, meaning that thousands of seasoned
American forces will be withdrawing precisely
during the time of great domestic sensitivity and
even perhaps increased peril. That could be a
recipe for disaster.
I and others have questioned the
confluence of those two events, and having been on
the ground, briefed by not just the generals but
talking with colonels and captains and sergeants
and privates, it is clear that much of the
positive work that has been done in Iraq has been
done by our military forces. They have been
rebuilding the schools. They have been reopening
the hospitals. They have been creating the
relationships on the ground with Iraqis. Sitting
in a meeting with the members of local governing
councils in Kirkuk, it was abundantly clear that
their primary relationship is with the military
forces that are based there.
And so we not only create the
inevitable dislocation that occurs when you're
moving thousands of men, women and equipment, but
also the destruction of those relationships, that
trust that is so hard to build up over time.
So it is clear to me that we are
going to have a lot of concerns that have to be
addressed if this turnover is to occur smoothly.
It would be difficult enough, but we also have no
idea how the local people in the various parts of
Iraq are going to react to this, because the plan
laid out by the administration does not really go
to an immediate transfer of political power, but a
staging, through a caucus system, to create some
kind of legitimate governance structure that can
do the constitution and then oversee elections.
That was not at all clear to the
people with whom I met in Kirkuk. They had the
idea that come June or July, they would be in
charge in Kirkuk and that they would have
responsibility. And they were anxious to wield it,
because they had felt particularly aggrieved over
the many years of Saddam's rule, which focused
often most harshly on the Kirkuk area.
It would be timely and, I think,
appropriate to now create a bridge using
international support and legitimacy, similarly to
what we did in Bosnia and Kosovo. The timing would
be appropriate. The American military would still
be in charge and responsible for security, but we
could begin to cede some of the hard political
decision-making to an international presence.
Now as we look at the election
process that is contemplated, Ambassador Bremer
told Senator Reed and myself that he would very
much like the United Nations to monitor the
election process. I agree with that. But it will
be very difficult to convince the United Nations
to come in to help monitor an election process
that it has nothing to do with setting up or
creating the means of implementing. I can't
believe that we could expect the United Nations to
participate without some more authority and
involvement. But now would be the time to try to
create those conditions.
There are many other issues
about our presence in Iraq and the transition that
we are attempting to bring about. Among them are
the continuing challenges that the Iraqi Civil
Defense Force, the police force and the army face.
The Iraqi Civil Defense Force
received high marks from both the civilian and
military Americans on the ground. They're
beginning to do quite a good job patrolling with
Americans, as I saw in Kirkuk. But they need more
training, they need vehicles, they need uniforms,
they need communications equipment. We are further
behind with respect to the Iraqi army, but again
we can improve conditions there by increasing the
pay and the prestige in order to stop the
widespread resignation -- as high as 20 percent --
that is occurring.
We also have to reconsider
including Ba'athists who were Ba'athists in name
only in positions of responsibility, such as
teaching and the medical profession. When we
disbanded the army, we disbanded the army of
teachers and doctors and others who were
compelled, in many instances, to join the party in
order to practice their profession and continue
their livelihood in Iraq under Saddam.
We are also going to be facing a
tremendous movement of people throughout Iraq with
the Hajj in late January and early February. There
is a pent-up desire among many Iraqis to go to
Mecca. So we will have thousands, if not millions,
of people on the roads, moving across the country.
We will also probably have people coming from
Syria and Jordan and elsewhere. There is no way
that I can imagine we could prevent that, but
providing for the security that will be necessary
during this period is an enormous undertaking. And
it is only slightly before the date that the
massive transfer and movement of our own troops
take place. So first, dealing with the Hajj, and
then secondly, dealing with our own troops, in
mass numbers on the road in their equipment, poses
another significant security challenge because, of
course, as some troops are moving out, the other
troops haven't yet come in. So we're going to be
in a transition there, as well.
So the question that I was asked
most frequently when I returned was, well, are you
optimistic or pessimistic, and I have to confess
that my answer is neither. I am both a little
optimistic and a little pessimistic, but what I'm
trying to do is be realistic about where we are
and what we need to be successful. We have no
option but to stay involved and committed.
To that end, I applauded both
Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld for their recent
trip to NATO to persuade NATO to become involved
in Iraq. This may be somewhat tardy, but it is
very welcome. Unfortunately, there has not been a
very positive response from NATO as of yet. At
this point, I think, NATO -- and indeed, non-NATO
allies -- have as much of a stake in the success
of Iraq as we do. And therefore, they should be
looking to work with the administration to create
the opportunities that they can then pursue to
become more involved in Iraq. It would be
extremely important and it would remove the taint
of this being an American occupation.
Secondly, I would strongly
recommend we create some kind of organization --
call it what you will; the Iraq Reconstruction and
Stabilization Authority, or whatever name is
chosen. It could include a proper role for NATO
and for the U.N., which would replace the
Coalition Provisional Authority, which would add
both military and civilian resources so that this
was not just an American occupation, and would
provide more flexibility for us in achieving the
timetable at whatever speed is appropriate to
transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis.
Let me turn now to Afghanistan,
a place I believe we have not paid sufficient
attention to in recent months. And by "we," I
refer to all of us -- citizens, the media, elected
officials, the administration. And this point was
crystalized for me when I was greeted by a soldier
saying, "Well, senators, welcome to the forgotten
front line of the war against terror."
Over the course of this past
year, we've heard so much about Iraq, which is
understandable, and so little about Afghanistan,
which is not. Afghanistan, I don't need to remind
New Yorkers or any Americans, is the place where
September 11th was conceived and implemented. It
was and still is the place where al Qaeda was
based, where its terrorists were trained, where
Osama bin Laden lives, there and across the border
in Pakistan.
We went in fast and strong in
2001, toppling the Taliban and scattering al Qaeda,
and we made tremendous progress in helping a new
government form. But too soon, the eyes of the
administration moved from Kabul to Baghdad and we
began pulling out resources -- troops,
intelligence -- and shifting them to Iraq. We
reduced our troop commitment substantially. In
fact, we had more law enforcement personnel on
duty in Salt Lake City for the 2002 Olympics than
we have soldiers in all of Afghanistan today.
Now, forgetting Afghanistan
seems to come easy to us. We've done it before,
leaving a vacuum after a regime was toppled. That
was 1989. And after years of helping and equipping
and financing Afghan and foreign rebels that were
supported by Arab Mujaheddin whom we essentially
created -- such as Osama bin Laden -- to combat
the Soviet occupiers, we pulled back. After the
Soviets left, we washed our hands and we walked
away. And we know the results. Having failed to
leverage whatever influence we might have had in
1989, by the mid- 1990s, we had no influence on
the Taliban, and less-than-useful influence with
Pakistan, who had been the primary sponsor of the
Taliban.
Now, some of us spoke out about
the excesses of the Taliban regime, especially its
treatment of women, and the Clinton administration
did attempt, through military action with
missiles, to ferret out bin Laden and his training
camps. In the years that followed, the government
looked for efforts, covert and overt, to try to
hit bin Laden, but he was, as he is today, an
elusive enemy.
September 11th gave us the
opportunity as well as the obligation to do what
there had been no domestic or international
consensus to do before we were attacked on our own
shores: to go into Afghanistan and to try to root
out both the Taliban and al Qaeda. We cannot
afford to make the same mistake that we made in
1989, yet I fear we might unless we ramp up our
involvement in this forgotten front-line land in
the war against terror.
First, here we have a commitment
from NATO. We were given that commitment, and
after some back and forth with the administration,
it has been decided hat NATO will expand its
commitment of troops and equipment. But it has not
yet happened. When we were in Kabul, we couldn't
even find anybody in the command structure of NATO
with whom to speak. When Secretaries Powell and
Rumsfeld went to NATO to request assistance with
respect to Iraq, Lord Robertson responded, "Well,
first we have to fulfill our commitment in
Afghanistan." I could not agree more. There is a
structure in Afghanistan. We have troops of many
nations, including from those that did not support
us in Iraq, most notably France and Germany, and
we should make sure that the Article 5 commitment
is fulfilled in Afghanistan.
Second, we have to do more along
the Afghan-Pakistan border. And we were reminded
yesterday, with the assassination attempt on
President Musharraf, how difficult that effort to
control that border remains. We met with President
Musharraf at around midnight on Thanksgiving
night, after coming from our visits in Kabul,
Bagram and Kandahar. And he is a man in a very
difficult position. He has been a very vocal and
helpful ally to the United States in the war
against terror. He has for the first time
attempted to put troops into the tribal areas
along the border in Pakistan. But he faces
considerable risks at moving more effectively
against the Taliban and the al Qaeda. We have to
support him in every way that we possibly can, and
we have to make clear that we need and expect that
support.
We know that new training camps
have sprung up across the border in Pakistan. We
know that new jihadists are being recruited on a
regular basis. We know that the madrassas, which
become the not only educational facility but the
indoctrination tool for between 600,000 and
700,000 young men in Pakistan, are a rich breeding
ground for future terrorists.
(Short audio break) ...support
President Musharraf is not just with more military
equipment, as important as that may be and as much
as he may want it, but we should be doing more to
help him deal with the educational shortcomings in
Pakistan that drive families to turn their young
boys over to madrassas. There are no other schools
in many of these areas. And because it is a
dangerous and largely ungovernable area, it is
difficult to recruit teachers and to put in the
equipment, the curriculum that could provide an
alternative to the indoctrination of the madrassas.
I spoke about that with
President Musharraf. He is well aware of it. They
are attempting to address it. But this is a rich
and important potential area of cooperation not
just for the United States but for the larger
world community.
Third, we have to continue our
close efforts with President Karzai and the United
Nations to assure that the constitutional loya
jirga that is going on as we speak, and then the
elections that are planned to follow in June or
July, will stay on track and will provide a real
means for the Afghan people to express their newly
found freedom and to create a governing structure
that will try to unify this disparate land.
I'm heartened by the news that
the loya jirga has commenced, but the news reports
that I've seen have been also very touching to me
because some of the officials running the loya
jirga have said, "Well, the delegates came
together and all they wanted to talk about was
when will we get a new school, when will we get a
new health clinic, how will we get some help for
the people who have no money and no means for
income?" You cannot proceed, in my opinion, on
just the track of electoral, constitutional,
governmental effort. There has to be a comparable
parallel track that tries to provide tangible
results for the Afghan people about the
improvements in their lives.
I suggested to President Karzai
that he could perhaps think about adopting some
signature issue that would send a clear signal to
all Afghans, whether they be Tajik or Pashtun or
Uzbek or whatever, that their president was
thinking about them and where they lived and the
challenges they faced. Because of my strong
conviction that attention paid to the role and
development of women is the most effective
investment one can make, I suggested an effort to
try to improve maternal health.
You know, women have always been
at the fulcrum of Afghani politics and reaction.
It happened in the early part of the 20th century,
when the kings of Afghanistan attempted to
modernize Afghanistan and pick as one of the
principal objectives the more fully participating
role of women. And that caused a backlash, which
led to all kinds of reaction in the tribal areas.
One of the reasons why we were able to marshal the
Mujaheddin and the warlords against the Soviets is
because the Soviets tried to provide more
opportunities for women.
So women's roles is a critical
point as to whether there can be a stable, free,
democratic Afghanistan. If we were to focus on
improving maternal health, that is an objective
that is not in any way contradictory to the
concerns of the most traditional, as well as the
hopes of the most modern Afghans.
I was told that the hospital in
Kabul delivers 200 babies a day. That is an
astonishing number. And they do it in very
difficult circumstances. We could cut in half the
maternal death rate in Afghanistan, which is the
highest in the world, with relatively little
money.
The next step would be more
difficult and expensive, but to clearly send a
signal that the United States, President Karzai,
all of us around the world wish the people of
Afghanistan, particularly the mothers of
Afghanistan, well would be a political and
strategic statement, as well as a humanitarian
one. Afghans need better schools, they need more
health clinics, and they're expressing that at the
loya jirga.
Finally, we have to address the
drug problem in Afghanistan. The country produces
more opium than any place in the world -- some for
export and some, unfortunately, for increasing use
right there in Afghanistan.
The consequences are bad all the
way around -- for users, wherever they might be;
for those who will contract HIV from sharing
needles; and for the stability of the Afghan
government, because of the role that the warlords
and the drug traffickers play in obtaining the
results of selling the opium and then having money
flow to terrorists and criminal cartels.
There are many other issues of
concern that were raised with us: the imbalance of
Pashtuns and Tajiks in the army, and the lack of
Pashtuns in the government; the touchy
relationship between India and Pakistan and
Afghanistan, which cannot be permitted to become
another proxy for their ongoing conflict.
But the overriding immediate
objective of our foreign policy must be to
significantly step up our military engagement,
preferably through greater involvement from NATO,
and then ramp up our domestic involvement by
funding education and health care, and putting in
place an aggressive anti-drug strategy. We simply
cannot afford to let Afghanistan slip once again
into chaos and become a haven for terrorists and
drug lords and criminals.
Finally, with regard to both
Iraq and Afghanistan, we need more of something
that is often in short supply here in our country:
patience. I was struck, during our briefing at the
embassy in Kabul, by a comment made by one of our
U.S. aid workers, who had recently returned from
the Southeast and had met with a number of former
Taliban, so-called former Taliban. And one of
these former Taliban said, "Americans may have all
the watches, but we have all the time." I think
it's a lesson that we forget at our peril. This
will not be an easy undertaking. It will require
patience, and it will require the continuing
support of the American people.
I was struck, in my briefing
with Ambassador Bremer -- his frequent reference
to the American occupation in Germany. I think
we've all heard Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary
Wolfowitz and others refer to the German example.
There certainly are lessons to be learned from
that, and in some respects we have actually
exceeded the time line in place there. The banking
system is further along than it was at the time in
the post-World War II era in Germany. There is a
central bank that's up and going, to some extent.
But it took 10 years to create a
stable, sovereign government, and we still have
troops in Germany, as we do in Japan, as we do in
South Korea, as we do in Bosnia, as we do in
Kosovo. So the idea that we can somehow bring
about dramatic transformational change in either a
short period of time or with a relatively limited
financial commitment is contradicted by our own
history. And therefore we have not only the need
for patience but a sense that we are going to be
involved over the long run, or we will not
guarantee or create the conditions for potential
success.
There are a lot of lessons that
perhaps we can learn from already looking back at
Iraq and Afghanistan. The overriding lesson I take
away is the need for international support. And
that has become almost a mantra, and people say
it, and no one's quite sure what it means, but
everyone keeps saying it. But to me, it is clear
that just as we were reminded with the quote that
I recited from Leslie Gelb that our interests are
often embedded in American internationalism, I
think have seen that clearly.
The irony is that while the
administration was quite dismissive of broader
international support before the war in Iraq and
until relatively recently, the recent moves to try
to obtain NATO support, the appointment of James
Baker signal without [inaudible] broaden the
international involvement. That certainly seems
appropriate, and not just because it is the right
thing to do, but because it is the smart thing to
do. It is smart to have more people involved. It
is smart to move toward multilateralism and anyway
from unilateralism. It is smart to look at how we
can get more people to have an ownership and
participation interest in what we do.
And of course, that has been
undermined in this last week by the by the
administration's announcement, very publicly, that
they were going to be cutting allies out of
reconstruction contracts. Well, I think all of us
can agree that American firms should be given
preference. The extent of our role in toppling and
capturing Saddam Hussein, the risks and losses
incurred by our troops and our civilians, the
hefty contribution of our taxpayers, the domestic
economic situation that we face all argue for
preference for American firms.
But the idea of so publicly
prohibiting other nations from competition is
unnecessarily antagonistic and may hinder our
ability to gain support for such causes as debt
relief and the fulfillment of financial
commitments that were made at the Madrid
conference. We already have a profound problem
with how we are perceived today in the world,
including among many of our traditional allies
with whom we have a lot of shared values in
common. And I have to add that no-bid contracts to
the likes of Halliburton here at home does not
help our government's image abroad, nor when it
appears that taxpayers may be disadvantaged does
it help our government's image at home, either.
And finally, let me just end
with a few remarks about what we need to do to
maintain domestic support for the patience that is
required and the commitment that we've undertaken,
since failure is not an option. It is extremely
important that the administration level with the
American people about the costs and the sacrifices
that will be required in Afghanistan, in Iraq and
in the ongoing war against terror.
Many of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle have urged that the
administration not only level with the American
people but begin to talk about sharing sacrifice
for this ongoing commitment. The lack of call, the
absence of a call to sacrifice and to share the
burden has been quite telling. And compared with
other points of danger and risk in our history, it
stands alone. We have gone forward with not only
huge tax cuts for the wealthiest among us -- now,
of course, since my husband's making money, we're
in that category -- (laughter) -- so I certainly
am aware of it and the implications -- but the
extraordinary deficit that we have now accumulated
of a half a trillion dollars suggests that we are
not serious about engendering and maintaining
domestic support.
One cannot continue to expect
the American people to postpone fixing up their
own schools and hospitals or foregoing the kind of
infrastructure improvements that are called for,
in sewer systems and water treatment systems and
the like, or continue to do less than is necessary
in homeland security to protect our own citizens,
without undermining the support for the long-term
commitment in the war against terrorism.
I worry a lot about how
difficult it will be in the political arena to
stay the course. And I would hope that not only in
more transparency and openness and candor with the
American people, but in a rhetoric that matches
the sacrifice made every day by our men and women
in uniform we can begin to create a deep and
lasting support for what is necessary to be done
to protect ourselves and to spread our values
around the world, over however many years it may
take.
You know, when we look back on
our own history and we think about the leaders who
have led in the past and have summoned us to
difficult goals, it is a great tribute to the
American people that they responded to that call
for sacrifice and duty. Now we don't have a draft,
and it would be all too easy to begin viewing our
military as a mercenary force, somebody else's son
and daughter or husband and wife, when, I think
it's fair to say, that these are the best of the
best of our young people in this generation. And
if we don't have those of us who are most able to
give being called to, it is very easy not only to
be apart from, but turn our backs on, the level of
sacrifice that is still required.
We need a tough-minded, muscular
foreign and defense policy, one that not only
respects our allies and seeks new friends as it
strikes at known enemies, but which is understood
and supported by the majority of the American
people. The consequences of unilateralism,
isolationism and overtly expressed preemptive
defense, I think, are severe. We will end up with
fewer nations, fewer intelligence services and
fewer law enforcement personnel internationally
helping to protect us against attacks, fewer
nations helping to counterattack when we are
struck, and less leverage in advancing democracy,
freedom, open markets and other values that we
believe elevate the people of the world even as
they protect our people here at home.
This is not to propound some
golden rule of international affairs, because I
think it's rooted in the intelligence and the
success of the 20th century. The more we throw our
weight around, the more we encourage other nations
to join with each other as a counterweight. We
have a lot of problems besides Iraq and
Afghanistan on the horizon. The number one problem
remains the spread of weapons of mass destruction
and those falling into the hands of either rogue
nations or borderless terrorists. And so we have
to have a united front of the world that cares
about life more than death; that consists of
builders instead of destroyers, standing together,
fighting together, working together.
It is important that we remember
the admonition, more than 40 years ago, of Dwight
Eisenhower against arrogance. President Eisenhower
said that "the people of the world must avoid
becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate,
and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual
trust and respect." I think we should listen to
such wise counsel from our history, if we are to
lead in the 21st century in a way that is keeping
with our values and our interests.
We have many, many reasons to
work more closely together, but the most important
are our children, our future grandchildren, all
the children who deserve from this generation of
leadership the same commitment to building a
safer, more secure world that we inherited from
the last generation.
