7Expand
A Century in Iraq, Replacing UN with "League of Democracies," Rogue State Rollback? A Look at John McCain's Foreign Policy Vision
McCain's foreign policy vision!!! Very important for the end of my paper
Tags: 08, McCain, UN, election, foreign, policy, presidential on 2008-04-17 -All Annotations (0) -About
in list: Election 2008
more fromwww.democracynow.org
-
Many of his advisers, including Randy Scheunemann, who’s now running his foreign policy task force, were engaged in that. Randy was then a chief staffer for Trent Lott. He wrote the Iraq Liberation Act that the neoconservatives and Ahmed Chalabi championed and pushed through Congress. He, Scheunemann, founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002 with White House support. He was also a founder of the Project for a New American Century, which was the sort of ad hoc think tank that the neocons put together. All of this is a sign of—and the fact that McCain would name him as his chief adviser—that McCain, in a way that Bush never did, is a true neocon.
-
ut even to enforce the prevalence of what he called American values—that’s a codeword for democracy—so that countries whose internal functioning—let’s say Russia today, under Putin and Medvedev—that countries like Russia that don’t seem as democratic as we like would then become ostracized or sanctioned or subject to various kinds of hostile, both political and military, sanctions. So this is what I find extremely troubling about McCain.
-
One of those institutions would be what he calls the League of Democracies, which is basically a way of short-circuiting the UN, where Russia and China, in particular, but also various non-aligned countries often stand up to the United States.
-
Yeah. And that’s a really important issue. I mean, his attitude toward Russia seems not to be based on any explicit Russian threat to the United States, but simply the fact that he doesn’t like the way Russia operates internally.
-
that makes it impossible to solve the biggest problem that we face: namely, how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program.
If we’re ever going to get a
-
When I spoke to Randy Scheunemann at length, he said, in fact, yes, we want to stay in Iraq for a long time, not just to stabilize Iraq, but because we may have to deal with many threats from the region. And of course you have to include Iran as among the possible threats that we’d have to deal with, according to McCain.
-
ou find people like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Larry Eagleburger. These are the traditional kind of Nixon-era realists, many of whom certainly wouldn’t be considered liberals, but who certainly are realists. But when you look at McCain’s positions, his views on things, you don’t find any of the influence of people like Eagleburger and Scowcroft.
13Expand
2 Camps Trying to Influence McCain on Foreign Policy - New York Times
Neoconservatives vs. Realists - John McCain
Tags: John, McCain, foreign, policy, neoconservatism, realism on 2008-04-17 -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromwww.nytimes.com
-
the so-called pragmatists, some of whom have come to view the Iraq war or its execution as a mistake — is expressing concern that Mr. McCain might be coming under increased influence from a competing camp, the neoconservatives, whose thinking dominated President Bush’s first term and played a pivotal role in building the case for war.
-
Among those on the list are several prominent neoconservatives, including Robert Kagan, an author who helped write much of the foreign policy speech that Mr. McCain delivered in Los Angeles on March 26, in which he described himself as “a realistic idealist.” Others include the security analyst Max Boot and a former United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton.
-
Prominent members of the pragmatist group, often called realists, say they are also wary of the McCain campaign’s chief foreign policy aide, Randy Scheunemann, who was a foreign policy adviser to former Senators Trent Lott and Bob Dole and who has longtime ties to neoconservatives. In 2002, Mr. Scheunemann was a founder of the hawkish Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraqi exile and Pentagon favorite, Ahmad Chalabi.
-
Mr. McCain, who is aware of the concerns, told reporters on his campaign plane early this week that he took foreign policy advice from a wide variety of people. “Some of them are viewed as ‘more conservative,’ quote,” he said, adding, “but I do have a broad array of people that I talk to, and hear from, and read what they write.”
-
He has been sympathetic to neoconservative views on some other issues, like taking a hard line with Russia and a proposal to establish a new international body made up solely of democracies as a counterweight to the United Nations. In other aspects of foreign and national security policy, he tilts toward the pragmatist camp, as in his promise to work more closely with allies.
-
“I don’t think that Senator McCain splits the difference so much as he bridges the difference” between the two factions, Mr. Scheunemann said. “You’ve got well-known realist figures as well as neo-cons,” but “they are signing up to John McCain’s campaign; he’s not necessarily signing up to their views on how best to lead.”
-
One of the chief concerns of the pragmatists is that Mr. McCain is susceptible to influence from the neoconservatives because he is not as fully formed on foreign policy as his campaign advisers say he is, and that while he speaks authoritatively, he operates too much off the cuff and has not done the deeper homework required of a presidential candidate.
-
The worry about Mr. McCain is centered among a group of foreign policy realists who have long been close to him and who lost out to the hawks in the intense ideological battles of the first term of the current White House. The group includes former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush.
-
Mr. McCain’s advisers say he talks to realists like former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and former Secretary of State George P. Shultz. Mr. Kissinger said in an interview that he had talked with Mr. McCain “15 to 20 times in the last year,” including on a bus ride to a fund-raiser on Long Island.
-
Mr. Kissinger was said to have been disturbed by Mr. McCain’s hardline attitude on Russia and the Russian president Vladimir Putin in the March 26 speech, viewing it as “going far beyond anything that is necessary” and “something that he has got to be talked out of,” according to someone who has spoken recently with Mr. Kissinger.
-
Similarly, Mr. Scowcroft is said to have expressed reservations about Mr. McCain’s call for creating a League of Democracies as a complement to the United Nations. An associate of Mr. Scowcroft said he viewed it as an effort to diminish the United Nations — a target of scorn among neoconservatives — and inhibit engagement with enemies.
-
But Mr. McCain’s positions on many other issues appeal to the pragmatists. In the Los Angeles speech, he rejected the unilateralism that has been the hallmark of the Bush administration’s foreign policy in favor of what he called “being a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies.”
-
Before the Iraq war, Mr. McCain generally opposed aggressive assertions of American power abroad. As a freshman congressman he criticized Ronald Reagan’s deployment of marines in Lebanon in 1983; later, in the 1990s, he sought to cut off financing for American troops in Somalia, at first wanted to limit the American response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait to the air, and opposed military intervention in Haiti.
27Expand
McCain's Speech on Foreign Policy, March 2008 - Council on Foreign Relations
Very recent speech by McCain on foreign policy - a good summary of his positions and larger vision
Tags: John, McCain, foreign, policy, Middle, East on 2008-04-17 -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromwww.cfr.org
- calls himself a "realistic idealist"post by efeghali on 2008-04-16
-
But I am, from hard experience and the judgment it informs, a realistic idealist.
-
But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause
-
We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact — a League of Democracies — that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.
-
Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.
-
I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.
-
Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union as we continue to support a strong NATO.
-
prevent Iran — a nation whose President has repeatedly expressed a desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth — from obtaining a nuclear weapon
-
the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.
-
But the threat posed by the terrorists is unique
-
Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the first and most basic duty a president has — to protect the lives of the American people.
-
But we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states.
-
It will require the use of all elements of our national power: public diplomacy; development assistance; law enforcement training; expansion of economic opportunity; and robust intelligence capabilities.
-
I have called for major changes in how our government faces the challenge of radical Islamic extremism by much greater resources for and integration of civilian efforts to prevent conflict and to address post-conflict challenges. Our goal must be to win the “hearts and minds” of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.
-
We also need to build the international structures for a durable peace in which the radical extremists are gradually eclipsed by the more powerful forces of freedom and tolerance.
-
Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical in this respect and cannot be viewed in isolation from our broader strategy. In the troubled and often dangerous region they occupy, these two nations can either be sources of extremism and instability or they can in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy.
-
For decades in the greater Middle East, we had a strategy of relying on autocrats to provide order and stability.
-
We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet. They no longer provide lasting stability, only the illusion of it. We must not act rashly or demand change overnight.
-
We must help expand the power and reach of freedom, using all our many strengths as a free people. This is not just idealism. It is the truest kind of realism. It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.
-
Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is the establishment of peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic states that pose no threat to neighbors and contribute to the defeat of terrorists. It is the triumph of religious tolerance over violent radicalism.
-
Iraqis themselves must increasingly take responsibility for their own security, and they must become responsible political actors. It does not follow from this, however, that we should now recklessly retreat from Iraq regardless of the consequences. We must take the course of prudence and responsibility, and help Iraqis move closer to the day when they no longer need our help.
-
We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal.
-
Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake
-
If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, as various factions of Sunni and Shi’a have yet to move beyond their ancient hatreds, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda
-
believe a reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values
-
Iran will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantl
-
that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later.
33Expand
Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century - Hillary Rodham Clinton
Clinton's essay on foreign policy for Foreign Affairs.
Summary: The next U.S. president will have a moment of opportunity to reintroduce America to the world and restore our leadership. To build a world that is safe, prosperous, and just, we must get out of Iraq, rediscover the value of statesmanship, and live up to the democratic values that are the deepest source of our strength.
Tags: Hillary, Clinton, foreign, policy, Middle, East on 2008-04-17 -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromwww.foreignaffairs.org
-
After 9/11, the world rallied behind the United States as never before, supporting our efforts to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan and go after the al Qaeda leadership. We had a historic opportunity to build a broad global coalition to combat terror, increase the impact of our diplomacy, and create a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.
-
But we lost that opportunity by refusing to let the UN inspectors finish their work in Iraq and rushing to war instead. Moreover, we diverted vital military and financial resources from the struggle against al Qaeda and the daunting task of building a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan.
-
At the same time, we embarked on an unprecedented course of unilateralism: refusing to pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, abandoning our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and turning our backs on the search for peace in the Middle East
-
. The next president will have a moment of opportunity to restore America's global standing and convince the world that America can lead once again. As president, I will seize that opportunity by reintroducing ourselves to the world. I will rebuild our power and ensure that the United States is committed to building a world we want, rather than simply defending against a world we fear.
-
The next president will be the first to inherit two wars, a long-term campaign against global terrorist networks, and growing tension with Iran as it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons.
-
The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system. Moreover, the next administration will have to confront an unpredictable and dangerous situation in the Middle East that threatens Israel and could potentially bring down the global economy by disrupting oil supplies
-
To meet these challenges, we will have to replenish American power by getting out of Iraq, rebuilding our military, and developing a much broader arsenal of tools in the fight against terrorism
-
There is a time for force and a time for diplomacy; when properly deployed, the two can reinforce each other. U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy.
-
Make international institutions work, and work through them when possible. Contrary to what many in the current administration appear to believe, international institutions are tools rather than traps. The United States must be prepared to act on its own to defend its vital interests, but effective international institutions make it much less likely that we will have to do so. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have understood this for decades. When such institutions work well, they enhance our influence.
-
Calls for expanding civil and political rights in countries plagued by mass poverty and ruled by tiny wealthy elites will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually delivers enough material benefits to improve people's lives.
-
Ending the war in Iraq is the first step toward restoring the United States' global leadership. The war is sapping our military strength, absorbing our strategic assets, diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan, alienating our allies, and dividing our people. The war in Iraq has also stretched our military to the breaking point. We must rebuild our armed services and restore them body and soul.
-
We must withdraw from Iraq in a way that brings our troops home safely, begins to restore stability to the region, and replaces military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future.
-
While working to stabilize Iraq as our forces withdraw, I will focus U.S. aid on helping Iraqis, not propping up the Iraqi government. Financial resources will go only where they will be used properly, rather than to government ministries or ministers that hoard, steal, or waste them.
-
As we leave Iraq militarily, I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region. The Bush administration has belatedly begun to engage Iran and Syria in talks about the future of Iraq. This is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done. As president, I will convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all the states bordering Iraq.
-
Finally, we need to engage the world in a global humanitarian effort to confront the human costs of this war. We must address the plight of the two million Iraqis who have fled their country and the two million more who have been displaced internally.
-
As we redeploy our troops from Iraq, we must not let down our guard against terrorism. I will order specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region.
-
Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states.
-
U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis.
-
I will work to expand and modernize the military so that fighting wars no longer comes at the expense of deployments for long-term deterrence, military readiness, or responses to urgent needs at home.
-
We must develop a comprehensive strategy focusing on education, intelligence, and law enforcement to counter not only the terrorists themselves but also the larger forces fueling support for their extremism.
-
The forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan, where our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, al Qaeda will return with them.
-
We must also strengthen the national and local governments and resolve the problems along Afghanistan's border.
-
it would also signal to our NATO partners that the war in Afghanistan and the broader fight against extremism in South Asia are battles that we can and must win. Yet we cannot succeed unless we design a strategy that treats the entire region as an interconnected whole, where crises overlap with one another and the danger of a chain reaction of disasters is real.
-
To maximize our effectiveness, we have to rebuild our alliances. The problem we face is global; we must therefore be attentive to the values, concerns, and interests of our allies and partners. That means doing a better job of building counterterrorist capacity around the world.
-
True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.
-
The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it.
-
As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
-
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives.
-
Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground.
-
To build the world we want, we must begin by speaking honestly about the problems we face.
-
Education is the foundation of economic opportunity and should lie at the heart of America's foreign assistance efforts.
-
In 1825, 50 years after the Battle of Bunker Hill, the great secretary of state Daniel Webster laid the cornerstone of the Bunker Hill Monument that stands today in Boston. He exulted in the simple fact that America had survived and flourished, and he celebrated "the benefit which the example of our country has produced, and is likely to produce, on human freedom and human happiness." He gloried not in American power but rather in the power of the American idea, the idea that "with wisdom and knowledge men may govern themselves." And he urged his audience, and all Americans, to maintain this example and "take care that nothing may weaken its authority with the world."
-
Two centuries later, our economic power and military might have grown beyond anything that our forefathers could have imagined. But that power and might can only be sustained and renewed if we can regain our authority with the world, the authority not simply of a large and wealthy nation but of the American idea. If we can live up to that idea, if we can exercise our power wisely and well, we can make America great again.
0Expand
USA: Obama and the Democrats' Foreign Policy
Marxist website: But on the question of war and foreign policy, does Obama really differ from the current White House administration, or from his party mate Hillary Clinton, or for that matter, from the entire DC political establishment?
Tags: Marxism, Barack, Obama, foreign, policy on 2008-04-17 -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromwww.marxist.com
6Expand
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs - Council on Foreign Relations
Speech to CFR
Tags: Council, foreign, policy, Foreign, Affairs, Barack, Obama on 2008-04-16 -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromwww.cfr.org
-
We must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats. But while sustaining our technological edge will always be central to our national security, the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face. This is why our country’s greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.
This administration’s first Secretary of Defense proudly acknowledged that he had inherited the greatest fighting force in the nation’s history. Six years later, he handed over a force that has been stretched to the breaking point, understaffed, and struggling to repair its equipment.
Two-thirds of the Army is now rated “not ready” for combat. 88% of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas, and many units cannot respond to a domestic emergency.
Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That’s why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. -
We have heard much over the last six years about how America’s larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom – that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair.
I agree. But this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box. The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice. -
Delivering on these universal aspirations requires basic sustenance like food and clean water; medicine and shelter.
-
As President, I will double our annual investments in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals.
-
A 21st century military to stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar.
-
Stronger alliances to share information, pool resources, and break up terrorist networks that operate in more than eighty countries.
32Expand
Renewing American Leadership - Barack Obama
Barack Obama's essay on foreign policy for Foreign Affairs.
Summary: After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.
Tags: Barack, Obama, foreign, policy, Middle, East on 2008-04-16 -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromwww.foreignaffairs.org
-
After thousands of lives lost and billions
of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership
in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the
threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We
can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must
lead the world, by deed and by example. -
the security and well-being of each and every American depend
on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission
of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding
that the world shares a common security and a common humanity. -
To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's
great promise and historic purpose in the world -
The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better
place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution.
And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal
of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March
31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. -
To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek
no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon
military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue
training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda. -
Changing the dynamic
in Iraq will allow us to focus our attention and influence on resolving the festering
conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- a task that the Bush administration
neglected for years. -
In recent years, they have
all too often looked in vain. Our starting point must always be a clear and strong
commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only
established democracy. -
Now more than ever, we must
strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side
by side in peace and security. To do so, we must help the Israelis identify and
strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those
who seek conflict and instability. -
Tough-minded diplomacy,
backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic,
and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries
such as Iran and Syria. -
Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate
to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of
continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure
from its key trading partners. -
At the same time, we
must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from
fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. -
Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical
agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate
Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel. -
A strong military
is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. -
We must use this moment both to rebuild our
military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. -
We should expand our ground forces
by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. -
We must recruit the very best and invest in their
capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate
equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and
other critical skills. -
I will not
hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people
or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. -
We must also consider using military
force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security
that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability
and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities. But when we do use force
in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the
clear support and participation of others -
Finally, we must develop a strong international
coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's
nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races,
creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting
these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure
must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration
has been unable and unwilling to use. -
We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan
and Pakistan -
We should
pursue an integrated strategy that reinforces our troops in Afghanistan and works
to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces. Our strategy
must also include sustained diplomacy to isolate the Taliban and more effective development
programs that target aid to areas where the Taliban are making inroads. -
To defeat al Qaeda, I will
build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong
as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere
from Djibouti to Kandahar. -
Finally, we need a comprehensive strategy
to defeat global terrorists -- one that draws on the full range of American power,
not just our military might. As a senior U.S. military commander put it, when people
have dignity and opportunity, "the chance of extremism being welcomed greatly, if
not completely, diminishes." It is for this reason that we need to invest with our
allies in strengthening weak states and helping to rebuild failed ones. -
To empower forces of moderation, America
must make every effort to export opportunity -- access to education and health care,
trade and investment -- and provide the kind of steady support for political reformers
and civil society that enabled our victory in the Cold War. Our beliefs rest on
hope; the extremists' rest on fear. That is why we can -- and will -- win this struggle. -
But today, NATO's challenge in Afghanistan has
exposed, as Senator Lugar has put it, "the growing discrepancy between NATO's
expanding missions and its lagging capabilities." To close this gap, I will rally
our NATO allies to contribute more troops to collective security operations
and to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization capabilities. -
I will work to forge a more effective framework
in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements,
such as the six-party talks on North Korea. We need an inclusive infrastructure
with the countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity and help
confront transnational threats, from terrorist cells in the Philippines to avian
flu in Indonesia. -
To that end, the United Nations requires
far-reaching reform. The UN Secretariat's management practices remain weak. Peacekeeping
operations are overextended. The new UN Human Rights Council has passed eight
resolutions condemning Israel -- but not a single resolution condemning the genocide
in Darfur or human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. Yet none of these problems will be
solved unless America rededicates itself to the organization and its mission. -
People around the world have heard a great
deal of late about freedom on the march. Tragically, many have come to associate
this with war, torture, and forcibly imposed regime change. To build a better, freer
world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of
the American people. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners
in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands
without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people
beyond the reach of the law. -
We need to invest in building capable, democratic states that
can establish healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth.
Such states would also have greater institutional capacities to fight terrorism,
halt the spread of deadly weapons, and build health-care infrastructures to prevent,
detect, and treat deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and avian flu. -
As president, I will double our annual
investment in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those
new resources are directed toward worthwhile goals. -
I will couple our support with an insistent call
for reform, to combat the corruption that rots societies and governments from within.
I will do so not in the spirit of a patron but in the spirit of a partner -- a partner
mindful of his own imperfections. -
Confronted by Hitler, Roosevelt said that
our power would be "direc