http://www.cfr.org/publication/14669/conversation_with_john_kerry.html">John Kerry, Council on Foreign Relations, Oct 2007
But it seems to me there are, above all, three predominant challenges in terms of the foreign policy of our country, which is obviously a challenge that it has been in a long, long time. This is the most extraordinary period of negligence, arrogance, indifference, incompetence mix of engagement with respect to world affairs to the degree that we are obviously -- and everybody knows this within certainly opinion circles -- as troubled as we have been as a nation in terms of our credibility and our leverage at any time in modern memory.
It's been so repeated almost in these last months that you don't have to go back through the litany of the whys and wherefores. The question is: Where are we going to go, and how are we going to get there? And I would respectfully suggest that a great deal of that is going to be answered automatically the moment we have a new president, and it will be an unprecedented moment of opportunity to move on any numbers of fronts simultaneously that can much more rapidly than a lot of people think make up for the roads untraveled in these past years. To some degree, there may even be a pent-up demand that, with the right creativity and the right leadership, will afford us an opportunity to do some things that you might not otherwise have been able to. And I really believe that, particularly if the outcome with respect to the Congress is also, and I hope it will be with respect to the presidency.
But let me just summarize. There are three most significant compelling international issues, none of which are receiving the attention and the creative diplomacy that they deserve.
The first, obviously, is the war on terror itself, as it's been named, ineptly and inaptly, but the whole question of extreme jihadism, under whatever rubric you want to put it.
The second is -- remains something we've lived with all of our lifetimes, and that's the nuclear challenge and the challenge of proliferation and the ability to continue what we started with Nunn-Lugar and the other efforts in terms of securing those -- that fissile material that's already out there.
And the third -- and this is the one I want to talk about briefly today -- is now global climate change, in no uncertain terms.
Time magazine recently had a headline and it said, "How to Prevent the Next Darfur." Step one: get serious global climate change.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11874/">Hillary Clinton, Council on Foreign Relations, Oct 2006
I want to suggest three principles I believe should underlie a bipartisan consensus on national security and consider how they apply to some of the most difficult challenges we face.
First and most obviously, we must, by word and deed, renew internationalism for a new century. We did not face World War II alone, we did not face the Cold War alone and we cannot face the global terrorist threat or other profound challenges alone, either. A terrorist cell may recruit in Southeast Asia, train in Central Asia, find funds in the Middle East and plan attacks in the U.S. or Europe. We can stop a deadly disease anywhere along the line as it hopscotches from continent to continent or we can wait until it arrives at our own doors. We can deal with climate change together now or excuse its calamitous consequences later. We can turn our back on international institutions or we can modernize and revitalize them, and when needed, get about the hard work of creating new ones.
Second, we must value diplomacy as well as a strong military. We should not hesitate to engage in the world’s most difficult conflicts on the diplomatic front. We cannot leave the Middle East to solve itself, or avoid direct talks with North Korea. When faced with an existential challenge to the life of our nation, President Kennedy said, “Let us never negotiate from fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” Direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness, they’re a sign of leadership.
Third, our foreign policy must blend both idealism and realism in the service of American interests. If there’s one idea that has been floated about over the last six years that I would like to see debunked, with all due respect to some of the political scientists in the room, it is this false choice between realism and idealism. Is it realist or idealist to stop nuclear proliferation? Is it realist or idealist to come together on global warming? Is it realist or idealist to help developing nations educate their children, fight diseases and grow their economies? And is it realist or idealist to believe we must turn around the ideology underpinning terrorism?
Interesting.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
