Georgetown University
Remarks by John Kerry
Remarks of Senator John Kerry
For January 23, 2003As our government conducts one war
and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear
that we can do a better job of making our country safer
and stronger. We need a new approach to national security
- a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in
stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic
unilateralism of the Bush Administration.
I offer this new course at a critical moment for the
country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead.
Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed
aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as
ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power.
We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one
people achieved such preeminence.
But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are
Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us
to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human
rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and
mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that
there is no such thing as the end of history. With great
power, comes grave responsibility.
We are all of us too aware, since September 11th, of the
gravity of the times and the greatness of the stakes. Having
won the Cold War, a brief season of content has been succeeded
by a new war against terrorism which is an assault on the very
progress we have made.
Throughout our history, in peaceful exertion and in armed
struggle, we were steadfast - we were right on the central
issue of freedom, and we prevailed. And because we prevailed
the world is a far better place than it was or would otherwise
have been.
The world today has a strong democratic core shaped by
American ingenuity, sacrifice, and spirit. But on the
periphery are many unstable and dangerous places, where
terrorists seek to impose a medieval dark age.
As we learned so brutally and so personally, we do face a new
threat. But we also face a renewed choice - between isolation
in a perilous world, which I believe is impossible in any
event, and engagement to shape a safer world which is the
urgent imperative of our time.
A choice between those who think you can build walls to
keep the world out, and those who want to tear down the
barriers that separate "us" from "them." Between those who
want America to go it alone, and those who want America to
lead the world toward freedom.
The debate over how the United States should conduct itself
in the world is not new.
After all, what is today's unilateralism but the right's
old isolationist impulse in modern guise? At its core is a
familiar and beguiling illusion: that America can escape an
entangling world...that we can wield our enormous power
without incurring obligations to others...and that we can
pursue our national interests in arrogant ways that make a
mockery of our nation's ideals.
I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who
would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer
to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and
step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.
I believe the Bush Administration's blustering
unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country.
In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and
allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism
around the world.
Too often they've forgotten that energetic global
leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor
we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced
democracies isn't mushy multilateralism -- it amplifies
America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global
institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with
greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that
our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others.
In a world growing more, not less interdependent,
unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking
influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it,
America can't opt out of a networked world.
We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek
to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make
Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in
the world.
That vision is defined by looking to our best traditions --
to the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and
leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in two world wars
and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the Cold War.
These leaders recognized that America's safety depends on
energetic leadership to rally the forces of freedom And they
understood that to make the world safe for democracy and
individual liberty, we needed to build international
institutions dedicated to establishing the rule of law over
the law of the jungle.
That's why Roosevelt pushed hard for the United Nations and
the World Bank and IMF. It's why Truman insisted not only on
creating NATO, but also on a Marshall Plan to speed Europe's
recovery. It's why Kennedy not only faced down the Soviets
during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but also signed the Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty and launched the Peace Corps to put American
idealism to work in developing countries. He spoke out for an
America strong because of its ideals as well as its weapons.
For us today, the past truly is prologue. The same
principles and strength of purpose must guide our way. Our
task now is to update that tradition, to forge a bold
progressive internationalism for the global age.
As I said last summer in New York, for Democrats to win
America's confidence we must first convince Americans we will
keep them safe. You can't do that by avoiding the subjects of
national security, foreign policy and military preparedness.
Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by
those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention
anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in
world politics...who place a higher value on achieving
multilateral consensus than necessarily protecting our vital
interests.
Americans deserve better than a false choice between force
without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. I believe they
deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military
might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum
logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to
lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold,
progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the
immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can
mount over the next years and decades, dangers that span the
spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons,
endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are, in the truest
sense, not just issues of international order and security,
but vital issues of our own national security.
So how would this approach, this bold progressive
internationalism, differ from the Bush Administration's
erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement? The answer
starts by understanding the nature and source of the threat we
face.
While we must remain determined to defeat terrorism, it
isn't only terrorism we are fighting. It's the beliefs that
motivate terrorists. A new ideology of hatred and intolerance
has arisen to challenge America and liberal democracy. It
seeks a war of Islam - as defined by extremists - against the
rest of the world and we must be clear its epicenter is the
Greater Middle East.
It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are
breeding this virulent new form of anti-American terrorism. If
you look at countries stretching from Morocco through the
Middle East and beyond...broadly speaking the western Muslim
world...what you see is a civilization under extraordinary
stress.
The region's political and economic crisis is vividly captured
in a recent report written by Arab scholars for the United
Nations Development Program and the Arab Fund for Social and
Economic Development. Let me quote:
"The wave of democracy that transformed governance in most
of the world has barely reached the Arab states...The freedom
deficit undermines human development and is one of the most
painful manifestations of lagging political development."
According to Freedom House, there are no full-fledged
democracies among the 16 Arab states of the Middle East and
North Africa. The Middle East is not monolithic; there are
governments making progress and struggling effectively with
change in Jordan, Morocco and Qatar. But Iraq, Libya, Saudi
Arabia, Sudan, and Syria are among the 10 least free nations
in the world.
Political and economic participation among Arab women is
the lowest in the world and more than half of Arab women are
still illiterate.
And these countries are among the most economically
isolated in the world, with very little trade apart from the
oil royalties which flow to those at the very top. Since 1980,
the share of world trade held by the 57 member countries of
the Organization of the Islamic Conference has fallen from 15
percent to just four percent. The same countries attracted
only $13.6 billion worth of foreign direct investment in 2001.
That is just $600 million - only about 5 % - more than Sweden,
which has only 9 million people compared to 1.3 billion
people. In 1969, the GDP of South Korea and Egypt were almost
identical. Today, South Korea boasts one of the 20 largest
economies in the world while Egypt's remains economically
frozen almost exactly where it was thirty years before.
A combination of harsh political repression, economic
stagnation, lack of education and opportunity, and rapid
population growth has proven simply explosive. The streets are
full of young people who have no jobs... no prospects... no
voice. State-controlled media encourage a culture of
self-pity, victimhood and blame-shifting. This is the breeding
ground for present and future hostility to the West and our
values.
From this perspective, it's clear that we need more than a
one-dimensional war on terror. Of course we need to hunt down
and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against
Americans and innocent people from Africa to Asia to Europe.
We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a
prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather
and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority
people of the greater Middle East build a better future. We
need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad
against the world...a path that leads to deeper integration of
the greater Middle East into the modern world order.
The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no
plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the
tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful
construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East
retribution and war but little hope for liberty and
prosperity.
What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive
and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle
East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths:
military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral
prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful
alliances.
Let me emphasize that last asset in this mission: our
alliances. This isn't a task that we should or need to
shoulder alone. If anything, our transatlantic partners have a
greater interest than we do in an economic and political
transformation in the greater Middle East. They are closer to
the front lines. More heavily dependent on oil imports. Prime
magnets for immigrants seeking jobs. Easier to reach with
missiles and just as vulnerable to terrorism.
Meanwhile, NATO is searching for a new mission. What better
way to revitalize the most successful and enduring alliance in
history, then to reorient it around a common threat to the
global system that we have built over more than a half-century
of struggle and sacrifice? The Administration has tried to
focus NATO on the Middle East, but it's high-handed treatment
of our European allies, on everything from Iraq to the Kyoto
climate change treaty, has strained relations nearly to the
breaking point.
We can do better. With creative leadership, the U.S. can
enlist our allies in a sustained multilateral campaign to
build bridges between the community of democracies and the
greater Middle East - not just for them, but for us.
Here, in my view, is what this strategy should look like.
First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror
groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration
has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made
costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance
to translate their robust rhetoric into American military
engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local
warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this
permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence,
including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our
fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to
track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get
control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which
have become a haven for terrorists.
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive
regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an
eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of
Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of
naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil
rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds
into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President.
He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated
the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is
miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and
his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security
Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq
disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us
since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current
Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this
issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after
September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our
allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk
instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that
made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus
to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the
focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed,
for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect,
elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he
never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's
standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined
us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United
Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or
face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that
the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the
ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how
he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing.
But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to
do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and
the necessary work of educating America about the rationale
for war.
As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United
States should never go to war because it wants to, the United
States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have
to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built
legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people,
absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must
take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a
better job of making their case to the American people and to
the world.
I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be
necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we
win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not
unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant
partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many
relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war
on terror is made more difficult. And we should be
particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially
alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs
of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with
United Nation's participation. And, while American security
must never be ceded to any institution or to another
institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect
for the process of international diplomacy because it is not
only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world
some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr.
President, do not rush to war.
And I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own
mandates. Do not find refuge in excuses and equivocation.
Stand up for the rule of law, not just in words but in deeds.
Not just in theory but in reality. Stand up for our common
goal: either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or the
decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.
Third, as we continue our focus on the greater Middle East,
the U.S. must look beyond stability alone as the linchpin of
our relationships. We must place increased focus on the
development of democratic values and human rights as the keys
to long-term security. If we learned anything from our failure
in Vietnam it is that regimes removed from the people cannot
permanently endure. They must reform or they will finally
crumble, despite the efforts of the United States. We must
side with and strengthen the aspirations of those seeking
positive change. America needs to be on the side of the
people, not the regimes that keep them down.
In the 1950s, as the sun was setting on European colonialism,
a young Senator named John Kennedy went to the Senate floor
and urged the Eisenhower Administration not to back France
against a rebellious Algeria. He recognized that the United
States could only win the Cold War by staying true to our
values, by championing the independence of those aspiring to
be free.
What's at issue today is not U.S. support for colonial
powers out of touch with history, but for autocratic regimes
out of touch with their own people.
We as Americans must be agents of hope as well as enemies
of terrorism. We must help bring modernity to the greater
Middle East. We must make significant investments in the
education and human infrastructure in developing countries.
The globalization of the last decade taught us that simple
measures like buying books and family planning can expose,
rebut, isolate and defeat the apostles of hate so that
children are no longer brainwashed into becoming suicide
bombers and terrorists are deprived the ideological breeding
grounds. I believe we must reform and increase our global aid
to strengthen our focus on the missions of education and
health --of freedom for women -- and economic development for
all.
The U.S. should take a page from our Cold War playbook. No
one expected communism to fall as suddenly as it did. But that
didn't prevent us from expanding society-to-society aid to
support human rights groups, independent media and labor
unions and other groups dedicated to building a democratic
culture from the ground up. Democracy won't come to the
greater Middle East overnight, but the U.S. should start by
supporting the region's democrats in their struggles against
repressive regimes or by working with those which take genuine
steps towards change.
We must embark on a major initiative of public diplomacy to
bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. We
must make avoidance of the clash of civilizations the work of
our generation: Engaging in a new effort to bring to the table
a new face of the Arab world -- Muslim clerics, mullahs, imams
and secular leaders -- demonstrating for the entire world a
peaceful religion which can play an enormous role in isolating
and rebutting those practitioners who would pervert Islam's
true message.
Fourth, The Middle East isn't on the Bush Administration's
trade agenda. We need to put it there.
The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch
a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop
the economic regression in the Middle East and spark
investment, trade and growth in the region. It should aim at
dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the
world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and
ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's
countries.
I propose the following policy goals:
We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's
Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced
tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones,"
Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million,
creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives
to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting
Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and
open up their economies.
We should also create a general duty-free program for the
region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative
and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some
conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror,
anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel
boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward
human rights.
Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free
market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a
region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of
economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world.
These countries suffer from too little globalization, not
too much. Without greater investment, without greater trade
within the region and with the outside world, without the
transparency and legal protections that modern economies need
to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast
enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their
people? But as we extend the benefits of globalization to
people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in
general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.
We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to
lift, not lower, international labor and environmental
standards. We should strengthen the IMF's ability to prevent
financial panics from turning into full-scale economic
meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina. And in the Middle
East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that
globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional
cultures and mores. We can do these things.
Fifth, and finally, we must have a new vision and a renewed
engagement to reinvigorate the Mideast peace process. This
Administration made a grave error when it disregarded almost
seventy years of American friendship and leadership in the
Middle East and the efforts of every President of the last 30
years. A great nation like ours should not be dragged kicking
and resisting - should not have to be pressured to the task of
making peace. A great nation like ours should be leading the
effort to make peace or we risk encouraging through our
inaction the worst instincts of an already troubled region.
Israel is our ally, the only true democracy in this
troubled region, and we know that Israel as a partner is
fundamental to our security. From Truman through Clinton,
America has always been committed to Israel's independence and
survival - we will never waver.
Israel's security will be best assured over the long term
if real and lasting peace can be brought to the Middle East. I
know from my own trips to Israel that the majority of the
Israeli people understand and expect that one day there will
be a Palestinian state. Their frustration is that they do not
see a committed partner in peace on the Palestinian side.
Palestinians must stop the violence - this is the fundamental
building block of the peace process. The Palestinian
leadership must be reformed, not only for the future of the
Palestinian people but also for the sake of peace. I believe
Israel would respond to this new partner after all, Israel has
already indicated its willingness to freeze settlements and to
move toward the establishment of a Palestinian state as part
of a comprehensive peace process.
Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States
must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start
down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path
together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it.
While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's
existence and security, the United States must work to keep
both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists must
not be allowed to control this process. American engagement
and successful mediation are not only essential to peace in
this war-torn area but also critical to the success of our own
efforts in the war against terrorism. When I visited the
region last year, in meetings with King Abdullah of Jordan,
President Mubarak of Egypt, and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia, it became clear that September 11th had changed the
imperatives of these countries. The Bush Administration has
missed an opportunity to enlist much greater support in the
peace process and needs to focus on this urgent priority- now.
The transformation of the Middle East which can come from
these efforts will determine much of our future - but we must
also look to the challenges on the rest of the planet. We must
build a new and more effective role for the United States in
the rest of this complex world.
The central challenge for the United States is to undertake
and lead the most global, comprehensive effort in history to
deal with proliferation generally and nuclear weapons lost or
loose in a dangerous world specifically. It is no secret that
there are those lurking in the shadows eager to capitalize on
a deadly market for nuclear materials held in insecure
facilities around the world.
Five years ago, authorities seized a nuclear fuel rod that
had been stolen from the
Congo. The security guard entrusted with protecting it had
simply lent out his keys to the storage facility. Two years
later, even after near disaster, the facility was guarded only
by a few underpaid guards, rusty gates, and a simple padlock.
The potential consequences are fearful and undeniable. In
October 2001, we picked up warnings that terrorists had
acquired a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb. If detonated in New York
City, hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died, and
most of Manhattan would have been destroyed. Sam Nunn had an
important warning, "This intelligence report was judged to be
false. But it was never judged to be implausible or
impossible."
This Administration's approach to the menace of loose
nuclear materials is strong on rhetoric, but short on
execution. It relies primarily and unwisely on the threat of
military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can
be defeated if they are found, but will not be deterred by our
military might.
It is time instead for the most determined, all-out effort
ever initiated to secure the world's nuclear materials and
weapons of mass des. We must offer our own blueprint for the
mission of threat reduction. Comprehensively securing
materials and keeping them from falling into the wrong hands
demands a global perspective and international action. The
only answer - the clear imperative - is a multilateral
framework implementing a global consensus that weapons of mass
destruction under the control of terrorists represent the most
serious threat to international security today, and warrants
an urgent and global response. We must marshal a great
international effort to inventory and secure these materials
wherever they may be and in whatever quantity. We must create
mechanisms to help those that would be responsible stewards
but lack the financial and technical means to succeed We must
establish worldwide standards for the security and safekeeping
of nuclear material and define a new standard of international
legitimacy, linking the stewardship of nuclear materials under
universally accepted protocols to acceptance in the community
of nations.
Nowhere is the need more clear or urgent than in North
Korea.
There the Bush Administration has offered only a merry
go-round policy. They got up on their high horse, whooped and
hollered, rode around in circles, and ended right back where
they'd started. By suspending talks initiated by the Clinton
Administration, then asking for talks but with new conditions,
then refusing to talk under the threat of nuclear blackmail,
and then reversing that refusal as North Korea's master of
brinkmanship upped the ante, the Administration created
confusion and put the despot Kim Jong Il in the driver's seat.
By publicly taking military force, negotiations, and sanctions
all off the table, the Administration tied its own hands
behind its back. Now, finally, the Administration is rightly
working with allies in the region - acting multilaterally --
to put pressure on Pyongyang. They've gotten off the merry go
round - the question is why you'd ever want to be so committed
to unilateralist dogma that you'd get on it in the first
place.
So too has the Administration missed major opportunities to
address the downside of globalization by creating its upside -
relief for nations around the globe struggling against
environmental degradation, global health crises, debt relief
in exchange for better development policies and improved trade
relationships. We need to show the face of enlightened-not
robber barren capitalism-something I will expand on in the
months ahead.
One of the clearest opportunities missed is the
environment. America has not led but fled on the issue of
global warming. President Bush's declaration that the Kyoto
Protocol was simply Dead on Arrival spoke for itself - and it
spoke in dozens of languages as his words whipped instantly
around the globe. But what the Administration failed to see
was that Kyoto was not just an agreement - it was a product of
160 nations working together over 10 years. It was a good
faith effort - and the United States just dismissed it. We
didn't aim to mend it. We didn't aim to sit down with our
allies and find a compromise. We didn't aim for a new
dialogue. The Administration was simply ready to aim and fire,
and the target they hit was our international reputation. This
country can and should aim higher than preserving its place as
the world's largest unfettered polluter. And we should assert,
not abandon our leadership in addressing global economic
degradation and the warming of the atmosphere we share with
the other 90% of humanity.
We should be the world's leader in sustainable
developmental policies. We should be the world's leader in
technology transfer and technical assistance to meet a host of
environmental and health challenges. We should rejoin our
allies at the negotiating table - and recognize that friends
in the fight for environmental clean-up are also the friends
we rely on to help clean out the stables of terrorism. And
this is a matter of our national security, too.
Let me offer one last example: The threat of disintegration
and chaos rises steadily in Africa as the continent is
increasingly devastated by HIV/AIDS. More than 29 million
people there are afflicted with that disease. Africa has 11%
of the world's population but 70% of all the people in the
world living with HIV/AIDS.
Responding is not only morally right, but deeply practical
and fundamentally important to the cause of global stability
and ultimately our own safety. How can countries -- or whole
continents -- torn apart by an untreated epidemic successfully
resist the call to violence, terror, and the trade of weapons
of mass destruction?
There is much that we can do. We have learned that we can
change behavior through prevention and education programs, and
if we make treatment available for those already sick. We can
stop the transmission from mother to child. And we can reduce
the growing number of AIDS "orphans" if we start adding
voluntary counseling, testing and treatment of parents and
care givers to children.
Yet the Bush Administration, intent on appeasing its right
wing, assails population control while it neglects AIDS
control even as that disease threatens to destroy whole
populations. We must put our national interests in the claims
of compassion ahead of political calculation and conservative
dogma. The United States must be a leader in assembling an
international coalition with other governments and private
sector partners -- a coalition with the will and resources to
confront the pandemic of HIV/AIDS with the same determination
that we bring to the war on terrorism. I challenge the Bush
Administration to develop and implement a comprehensive
strategy to help the countries in Africa win the war against
AIDS in their own backyard -- backed up by substantial
increases in resources, beginning with $2.5 billion for the
upcoming fiscal year.
Taken together, I believe these proposals, that I have put
forward today, present a far better vision for how we deal
with the rest of the world - a better vision for how we build
relationships - and how doing so will make America safer. But
there are other things we must do as well. I also believe
there is a better vision for military transformation; a better
vision for intelligence gathering; and a far more effective
way of achieving homeland security and domestic preparedness.
I intend to lay out detailed proposals on each of these areas
in the coming months.
This is a fateful time - a time for new
American leadership in the world and new leadership in America
that sets before us the great challenges and honestly
addresses what we must do to meet them. The effort will not be
easy. The task will not be simple and success will not be
swift. But it's our challenge to look to the long term -
beyond the next election to the next generation - bending the
course of history, recognizing that other nations share it
with us, and joining with them in resolve and hope, thereby
making safer the life of America and making better the life of
the world. With a progressive internationalism. shaped by our
bedrock values, and quiet confidence in our strength and in
our cause, we must once again demonstrate to an anxious world.
America's resolve to bear the burdens and pay the price of
leadership so that we may, as President Kennedy said on a cold
January day long ago, "assure the survival and success of
liberty."
|
