Progressive Internationalism and Sustainable Development: Meeting New Challenges in a Changing World

INTRODUCTION: US ROLE IN THE WORLD

The United States faces many challenges in the world and, unfortunately, the manner in which we are carrying out our foreign policy presents serious problems for addressing these challenges. Our strategy for dealing with the rest of the world is deeply flawed and we need a new plan.

The bottom line is that we've never been more unpopular among the community of nations.

We are at war with al Qaeda and we must fight terrorism throughout the globe and here at home. We must deal with the threat of failed states. We must promote economic engagement throughout the world. Diseases like AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis are enormous challenges to stability and economic growth in developing nations.

Yet, in the face of such challenges, over the last year the Administration has issued a series of needless slights against our allies. In the months prior to the conflict in Iraq, senior Administration officials issued repeated warnings that the UN inspection process was bound to fail. During and after the war, they have ratcheted up tension through the manner in which they've handed out contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq and criticized friends as "Old Europe." Our foreign policy during the Bush Administration has alienated us, and that has real consequences.

The stakes are perhaps higher than ever and if we are to advance our policies and secure our nation the rest of the world has to view our power as a positive force, not as a threat. We must provide leadership.

Such leadership is a responsibility we bear as the most powerful nation in the world. It is also the smartest way for us to defend our country, working through alliances and global institutions that entrench democratic norms and values in this world. This helps amplify our messages of growth and opportunity, extends our reach and also gives greater weight and credibility to our actions in the opinion of other nations.

LEADERSHIP: THE CASE FOR PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONALISM

After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United States determined it was necessary to force Iraq withdrawal from Kuwait. At that point, the first call that then-President George Bush made was to the United Nations. In doing so, he signaled to the world that the United States took seriously the value of international institutions and also that we would work with our allies to address the menace of Saddam Hussein.

By contrast, in September of 2002, when the current Bush Administration was revving up its push to enforce the existing UN resolutions regarding Iraq, President George W. Bush made clear in a speech that we were prepared to go it alone and didn't need - or indeed care about - the international community. Indeed, a vituperative speech made by Vice President Cheney prompted German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to comment, "It just isn't good enough to learn from the American press about a speech which clearly states 'we are going to do it, no matter what the world or our allies think.'"

Even had we worked more closely with the United Nations and others last year, the war in Iraq would still have been costly and difficult. But I believe that we would be in a much stronger position in that region and in the world. Surely, the reconstruction and security effort in Iraq would put fewer American soldiers in harms way.

The reconstruction would also be less costly. During the first Gulf War the cost of military operations was $61 billion, with our allies covering approximately $53 billion of that.

By way of contrast, last year's Iraq war cost the United States approximately $100.l billion. We received no similar grants, pledges or contributions from the international community to help pay for the military operations of. In terms of reconstruction, the United States will pay approximately $24 billion in FY03 and FY04 dollars. So far, the international community has pledged $3.6 billion in grants. So far, none of that money has been spent. Similarly, other nations have pledged $13 billion in loans, though as of now, none have been extended.

Much of the talk about the benefits of progressive internationalism centers on broad, geopolitical, or even somewhat theoretical terms. Make no mistake, there are many such benefits. However, as one can see, there are real economic costs of unilateralism as demonstrated in Iraq.

There is also a cost that can be measured in lives. We have lost more than 500 American troops and suffered well in excess of 2,000 casualties. As the predominant presence in the peacekeeping and reconstruction effort in Iraq, our troops are the most likely and frequent target of those who seek to further destabilize that nation. Right now, Iraq too closely resembles an American occupation. We need to more effectively internationalize the effort in Iraq so that those who share our interest in the development of a stable, democratic nation also share in the burden and responsibility of making it so.

We must lead through international institutions - by doing so we can help reinvigorate relationships with allies, spread the burden of fighting disease and poverty among many nations, and internationalize the presence in Iraq. Global challenges require global solutions. It seems to me unwise for the United States to attempt to tackle such matters alone.

I want to be clear about one critical point: none of this should be confused with allowing others to determine actions central to our security - we hold the right to defend our interests and I strongly believe that we should and must act alone if progressive internationalism fails and our security is at stake. This is simply common sense and is something that is fundamental to our security policy.

Progressive internationalism may not be an end unto itself, but it sends a clear message to our allies: we care about your goals and priorities in international affairs. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Sadly, such a message would be an enormous break from current policy. In some cases, the problems with this Administration's foreign policy centers not on what they've done, but how they've done it.

As I noted above, in ways big and small, the White House has gone out of their way to push away friends, embolden critics and undermine any sense of progressive internationalism. Working with our allies and with institutions is simply the most effective way to keep America safe and strong. We cannot simply impose our will on others or pursue a narrow, myopic nationalism. In order to remain true to our best values, we must lead the world toward political and economic freedom.

Acting in the name of international law -- through the auspices of the United Nations, for example -- is preferable to acting alone. Given that the community of nations has a stake in preserving international law, acting within this framework universalizes American interests, confers our actions with legitimacy and comforts potential allies. When American actions seem driven by U.S. national security imperatives alone, partners are hard to find.

This is not radical thinking. Until this Administration came into power, there had been a long and vital -- and bipartisan I might add -- American tradition of foreign policy that centered on collective security, multi-lateral engagement, and respect for international law. But over last three years, the Bush Administration has tried to make "diplomacy" a dirty word.

Acting with others, we will exercise our strength and leadership. We will combat terror, tyranny and genocide. We will act constructively and in a manner consistent with our values to reduce poverty, promote sustainable economic development and root out corruption in the developing world.

Again, there is a practical aspect to this: as I mentioned earlier, we can save American lives and American taxpayer dollars by reaching out to our allies and acting together. Also, international cooperation has a significant short-term and long-term impact on the war against terrorism. In the short-term, we gain a greater level of willingness to assist in the effort to track down terrorist financing, freeze bank accounts, and capture al Qaeda operatives, secure airports, cargo and ports. Radical transnational Islam, not tied to its countries of origin, appeals to marginalized individuals all over the world and requires and international response.


Over the longer term, together, we can help defuse the extremist movement of Islamic fundamentalists. We need an effective, long-term political and economic strategy for changing the conditions in which Islamic fundamentalism breeds and from which new threats to our national security are most likely to arise. This does not have to be a clash of civilizations - this is about respect for life, democracy, opportunity and freedom. These are values shared throughout the world and no one nation has cornered the market on such values. When more and more partners are articulating this message, and more and more nations share in the benefits of these values, I believe there will be fewer havens for terrorists.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

For generations, many international institutions have focused aid and technical advice on encouraging developing states to cut taxes, open markets and scale back social service programs as a way to advance their economies and enter the global marketplace. The result is that, in many states, there is no middle class, a limited educational system and no welfare or social safety net.

As states work to enter the world economy, these programs are an important part of giving their citizens a fair chance at participation. Without such services, those on the margins of society are at risk of falling into poverty, and states will continue to falter. We must change the way our aid programs operate so that their goals and tactics provide for sustainable development.

The reality is that unless developing states have a viable tax base, grow a middle class, have in place a real legal and judicial system, have credible government and political processes and a vibrant civil society, they will never move into a more prosperous place in the world. Keep in mind that it was Alexander Hamilton - no mushy liberal - who argued that the United States needed to create a real tax base if we were to realize our potential as a republic.

The United States' Aid Priorities

Our aid must empower NGO's that provide such institution-building counsel to developing states - it's just not enough to either pass along aid or simply preach the value of the free market.

The stability that can result from our engagement in aid also helps mitigate and reduce the problems associated with failed states and terrorism. On the other hand, the cost of inaction would be enormous, borne in the form of persistent instability, regional conflicts, increasing humanitarian and health crises and continued economic failures.

It is important to point out the interconnections between these issues. We cannot successfully tackle one without simultaneously addressing the others.

The United States can have an enormous and positive impact on states in need, however, the formula for success must include close coordination with the recipient nation as well as other donors and multilateral development organizations. I strongly support our aid programs but there must be recognition -- both among Americans foreign aid community and among those in the recipient country -- that this can not be a top-down process. Simply put, the best aid programs are those that have substantial buy-in from the local policy makers and are met with a commensurate commitment to sound economic policies, social services, education, and a strengthening of political institutions. Aid cannot happen in a vacuum -- it must take place in the context of overall reform if it is to be effective and sustainable. The concept of sustainable development is a key part of our foreign policy agenda and should underpin our outreach and work.

We must also address corruption in some of the governments that we are aiding - a consistent criticism from opponents of international aid is that "funds are being diverted for improper use." At the very least, governments must operate in a manner that is transparent enough to ensure that funds are accomplishing the intended goals. Also, in some cases, governments may actually be preventing the type of reforms - on education, health care and social services - that are necessary for the country to move forward. Accountability is important.

Left un-addressed, extreme poverty and a lack of access to adequate education, health care and opportunity can lead to un-governability and, ultimately, failed states. As we have seen in the case of Afghanistan, such states are fertile breeding grounds for terrorism, instability and drug trade.

Education is one of the most significant tools for reducing poverty. When given the opportunity to learn to read and write, citizens are armed with the skills they need to participate in their communities, in their economy and in their government. Education not only improves people's health, income and productivity, it also empowers them to create civil society that leads to better government and greater involvement in the global economy.

Education among women is especially important. Women play a central role in their families and are often responsible for the health, education and economic well-being of their children. In order to promote prosperity and a better life for families in the developing world, we must make education and literacy among women and girls a priority.

Those who are sick cannot participate in child care, commerce or education. HIV/AIDS,
Malaria and TB are enormous challenges and have a disproportionate impact on the poor. The economic impact -- not to mention impact on families and communities -- is staggering. The World Bank estimates that when incidence of AIDS reach 8 percent (a level seen in thirteen nations in Africa), it steals about one percent of economic growth. TB costs the average patient up to 30 percent of their annual household income. Malaria slows economic growth in Africa by about 1.3 percent annually. We must fund the Administration's plan for AIDS relief and also make sure that funds flow to the Global Fund, which fights AIDS, TB and malaria. It's clear that without progress on this front, the effort to reduce poverty is nearly impossible.

I believe that we must aggressively support micro-credit programs - they are having an important impact on breaking the cycle of poverty throughout the world. Offering the poor an opportunity to join in the economy can make life-changing differences. The poor, all too often, have no access to capital and would not be eligible for traditional bank loans. Micro-credit offers a chance to grow a middle class and create economic stability in regions where, currently, that is a scarce commodity. According to the World Bank, extreme poverty was reduced by 70 percent within five years among those who participated in the Grameen bank microcredit program. Microcredit makes a difference.

Borrowers receive small loans -- oftentimes $100-$150 -- and use that money to start small businesses that create income and allow the recipient to pull themselves and their families out of poverty. I have seen the effect of microcredit loans first hand during a recent trip to Central America. Women who started with nothing have used this program to start, for example, an aloe vera soap factory that now employs fifteen people. These small loans have empowered women and men in the developing world with the resources to provide themselves with health care and to educate their children. In fact, many of the women I met with were proud to point out that their children were now employed as accountants, teachers and computer technicians.

Reform of our Aid Programs

In March 2002, President Bush proposed the creation of a Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), a fund that would provide $5 billion per year to a select group of countries that are "ruling justly, investing in their people, and establishing economic freedom." The President's other, large-scale initiative -- $15 billion over five years to combat HIV/AIDS -- is also laudable.

I am concerned that neither has been framed within an overall, coherent strategy for international aid. I am also concerned that these may come at the expense of existing development and humanitarian programs. USAID is doing a lot of terrific work throughout the world and I am committed to making sure that the MCA does not create a parallel bureaucracy that duplicates our efforts or squanders our limited foreign assistance funds. That being said, those who criticize USAID for "waste" are, in my opinion, missing the point. There is also waste at the Pentagon, would these critics say we should slash defense spending?

Also, while I support the goals of the such initiatives, it appears that the Administration is only rhetorically committed and have not made good on their promised by providing funding. There has been a pattern in this Administration by which broadly supported program are announced -- and even authorized -- but not adequately funded. The stakes are high with both of these programs and they should not fail for lack of commitment and funding from the Administration. Doing so will not only undermine our influence throughout the world, but will also discourage other partners from making good on their pledges

The White house has not proposed any mechanism that will ensure that the new programs it has proposed will ensure that aid will be distributed effectively and in a manner consistent with our foreign policy goals, that provides for coordination among the various agencies responsible for aid and that safeguards against duplication of efforts among programs and agencies.

The White House has reportedly started seventeen presidential initiatives designed to tackle problems ranging from HIV/AIDS to digital divide. I am encouraged that the Administration has sought to reinvigorate and recommit our nation to such important goals. I believe strongly, however, that these efforts can not disperse activities and resources so broadly that the overall impact and efficacy of our foreign aid may be undermined.

As such, I want to work with the Administration and with my colleagues in Congress to conduct an inventory and overview of our changing aid apparatus. I believe that a substantial review is appropriate given the scale of these recent changes.

Nation building
During the 2000 campaign, President Bush famously remarked that, "I don't think our troops ought to be used in what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win wars." Clearly, a reflexive opposition to nation building, and the associated international institutions, underpinned much of the president's -- and his Administration's -- view of how the United States was to interact with the rest of the world.

After September 11th and two major military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the President has come to nation building a bit reluctantly. It appears that this Administration continues to view nation building as a distasteful but obligatory aspect of a conflict. Not surprisingly, they have allocated little by way of coherence and long-range planning to this task.

As a result, the Administration has created the worst of all scenarios: the president disdains "nation building", but has put our soldiers - who aren't trained for this mission - in an environment where they must undertake a long, sustained nation-building effort. The White House can't have it both ways. We accept this role, fund it and train our personnel for it, or we don't put them in that position.

I believe that nation building -- or state building or however we want to describe the process of assisting failed states -- must be an essential aspect of American foreign policy. Over the last fifteen years, we have done quite a lot of intervening throughout the world, either for security or humanitarian reasons. Since the end of the Cold War, we have taken on about one new commitment every other year under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. This is the new reality. We will continue to engage in nation building. The only question is whether we will prepare and train for this mission or whether we bury our heads in the sand, pretend it's not important and suffer from lack of a comprehensive strategy.

In concert with our allies and with international institutions that are already engaged in nation building, we must focus attention and resources on how we undertake, first, stabilizing failed or failing states and then, second, helping create long term, self-sustaining economic, political and social service institutions.

Frankly, nation building is not rocket science. It is difficult work, make no mistake. But we already know how to do much of this. We simply have not established a coordinating office, for example, that could serve as a clearinghouse for information and, importantly, a reservoir for the institutional knowledge surrounding the exercise of nation building. We shouldn't have to relearn the skills and lessons time and again.

This office, which should likely be positioned at the White House, would serve as a regular channel of communication and coordination among American ad international leaders in nation building and, importantly, would also serve as the United States government's one-stop shop for this critical function.

An office such as this would play a tremendous role in Afghanistan's rebuilding and economic recovery. It would have the base of knowledge and expertise to work with the international NGO's, worldwide institutions and government agencies to develop a real plan to, for example, move Afghanistan's agriculture away from opium and toward sustainable, legal crops. This is just one example of how this office would help our efforts to assist failed states and create stability.

Afghanistan
There have been successes in this fight against terrorism. Al Qaeda leaders have been caught and apparent plots have been foiled. But even our most obvious successes also display shortcomings in our strategy. Afghanistan has become an example of the work that remains to be done in our military and foreign policy. Make no mistake, our servicemen and women did an admirable job in ousting the Taliban from power. Since the military successes in Afghanistan, Afghan citizens are enjoying new personal freedoms that were forbidden under the Taliban. A new constitution was adopted and signed just this month and in June 2004, presidential elections are to be held, followed by parliamentary elections one year later. About 2 million Afghan refugees have returned, and women have returned to schools, the workforce, and participation in politics.

But we are not close to declaring victory. In recent weeks, we've seen a new wave of attacks across the south and east of the country, blamed on holdouts from the Taliban and their anti-government allies. Approximately 60 people have been killed in violence in the past three weeks - including 15 civilians -- in these attacks. The influence of Afghanistan's central government is largely limited to Kabul. There is a lack of security in many parts of the country, particularly the southeast, which was the power base of the Taliban. Taliban fighters have been regrouping on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border since mid-2003 and have waged attacks on U.S. and Afghan forces and aid and reconstruction workers. Security concerns are widely reported to be slowing reconstruction. The border with Pakistan remains unsecured and members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are able to operate with a high degree of freedom. The Afghan army and police force remain inadequately trained and equipped. The warlords remain largely in power in too many regions. They are heavily armed -- indeed they have numbers of soldiers larger than the "official" Afghan forces -- and control large areas of Afghanistan.

To help foster development, the United Nations and the Bush Administration have lifted most sanctions imposed on Afghanistan since the Soviet occupation. We gave Afghanistan a total of over $815 million in aid during FY2002, but aid will rise for FY2004 to about $1.6 billion after factoring in a supplemental aid package signed into law last fall.

But aid alone will not bring security and, ultimately, stability to Afghanistan. We need to continue the difficult and challenging work to help create a sustainable economic and political infrastructure in Afghanistan. As I noted above, we are making real -- but fragile -- progress on the political front. However, the economic aspects remain daunting.

We need to look no further than the once-again thriving opium market for an example of how far Afghanistan has to go. Estimates for all of 2003 indicate that the opium crop in Afghanistan will reach close to 4,000 metric tons -- equivalent to 77 percent of global output -- as local leaders look to the crop as a source of revenue with which to maintain their independent militias and fiefdoms. In fact, the value of the 2002 opium crop is calculated at $1.19 billion, compared with about $122 million in 2000.

Opium farmers' income, combined with that of traffickers, was over $2.3 billion, more than half Afghanistan's gross domestic product. The estimated gross earnings for a hectare of opium poppy increased from $1,500 in 2000 to $16,000 in 2002. By contrast, a hectare of wheat -Afghanistan's principle food crop - earned an average of $215 over most of the nation. A U.N. report, issued August 8, 2003, said that about 500,000 Afghans are involved in Afghanistan's narcotics production and trafficking chain.

This is a large and growing problem and until we have a real plan for encouraging farmers to grow legal, productive crops, the prospects for self-sufficiency appear grim. Until we deal with the elicit drug trade in Afghanistan - which funds gangs and terrorism - the work we're doing to help foster political reform and a stronger central government will be severely undercut. The drug trade and the amount of money involved are a threat to stability in that region and, ultimately, a threat to our fight against terrorism.
Finally - and perhaps most importantly - it's critically important that we catch Osama bin Laden. As we've seen in Iraq, attacks against American soldiers and our interests have reduced significantly in the weeks after the capture of Saddam Hussein. While not a panacea, capturing bin Laden would deal a serious blow to the morale and organization of al Qaeda. I believe strongly that we must recommit ourselves to this goal and, in doing do, dispatch sufficient troops to the region where our intelligence indicates that he's hiding and mount an aggressive assault on bin Laden. His capture is a necessary condition to the ongoing success of the war against terrorism.




ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

Trade and opening markets is an important part of getting nations involved in the global economy. Using these tools, we can help lift developing nations out of poverty and, in the process, also enhance security for America and others.

It is no accident that the world's freest countries are also its richest countries. I believe that expanded trade, while not without challenges, offers the best chance for expanding opportunity at home and abroad. Trade agreements can lead to vibrant markets, the realization of individuals' creative potential, and a closer network of economic interdependence.

And as the world's largest economy, America has an obvious interest in expanding a rules-based system of international commerce that moves the world toward broadly shared prosperity while also lifting global labor and environmental standards as well as advancing human rights. I believe that these goals are not mutually exclusive: we can trade while also moving forward on labor rights, human rights and protecting the environment.

An important bi-product of developing states being more deeply integrated into the global economy is a related increase in good governance, political stability and respect for the rule of law. As I mentioned earlier, corruption remains a significant challenge for many developing states. I believe that economic liberalization can have a considerable -- and positive -- impact on pushing developing countries to adopt stable, open, transparent political, judicial and economic systems. Investors will direct their money to areas where they are confident that the rules of law are respected, property rights are followed and contracts are enforceable. States that do not adopt commonly agreed upon systems will have a very difficult time attracting capital. Simply put, these conditions are necessary for economic development and have an associated, positive benefit for the citizens in developing states.

Finally, to those who suggest that the United States should pull out of the World Trade Organization, I'd like to point out some of the consequences of such action. First there would be an effective tax increase levied on every American citizen and company. The tariffs associated with such a move would cost the world's economy billions and would surely result in a global recession. At the same time, there would be no progress made on important needs such as the environment, labor standards and human rights.

SECURITY AND A CRITIQUE OF THE LEFT

Many Americans agree with much of what I've said today - and indeed with what many Democrats say - about progressive internationalism and sustainable development. These policies, I believe, represent broadly shared values. But there remain fundamental concerns that center on whether or not Democrats will adequately protect the nation. Some Americans are put off by perceived weakness in our foreign, security and defense policies and thus may not trust our party.

First, as I mentioned earlier, while I believe strongly in the value of progressive internationalism, it will not always be tenable. When our security is at stake, it may not always be possible to build a coalition. There may be thoughtful disagreements among allies. And in that case, we always stand ready to act as we must to protect and defend our nation. We must use force with restraint, but we shouldn't hesitate to use force if necessary. This is not a partisan question; it's a bedrock value that we must articulate.

Also, we cannot forget that we are still at war with al Qaeda. There are those who suggest that we should go after al Qaeda as if we're following a criminal case. They are wrong. We must prosecute the war on terrorism in a manner consistent with the events of September 11th: it was an act of war and must be treated that way. That is the reality that we currently face and we have no choice but to continue an aggressive assault on terrorism. We must secure our homeland by hardening our borders, protecting our ports and critical infrastructure and leveraging technology to better detect and deter any attacks. We must do all we can to protect American citizens.

But that's not enough. We also need to implement an offensive strategy for working in a comprehensive, coordinated way to disrupt the terrorist networks, freeze their assets, apprehend their leadership, secure loose nukes and, ultimately, dry up the existing reservoir of new recruits that remain willing to join their ranks.

As we've seen, the war against terror is so multi-faceted, with so many fronts, that we cannot win - or be truly successful - if we undertake this fight unilaterally. Unfortunately, this administration has failed to realize the potential of common cause against terrorism. They've squandered the opportunity to build what could have been a great coalition aimed at defeating al Qaeda and their partners.

Our allies throughout the world have a shared interest in defeating and dismantling terrorist networks and, in different ways, many are engaged in this fight. But an ad hoc coalition of the willing is not sufficient. This war is a long-term effort, one that demands a concentrated, sustained effort that leverages the strengths of our partners and that spreads around the costs and responsibility of this fight.

Finally, there are those who believe that America's role in the world has been nothing more than string of negative or violent actions. These critics are also apt to blame America for all that is wrong in the world. That's just not true. By overstating their case, they undermine their credibility and give weight to accusations that Democrats "don't get it" when it comes to foreign policy. Clearly, there is room for improvement in many of our policies, however, there is just no question that our presence in the world has been a positive one.

There is criticism that, as a percentage of GNP or even in real dollars, America is not doing enough in aid. I believe that view fails to account for the amazing work being done by NGO's and other organizations - like the Gates Foundation and Global Partnerships here in Seattle - that demonstrate America's commitment to international aid as well as the innovative and entrepreneurial way we seek to accomplish our goals. Indeed, it is our very capitalist system that allows our aid to be so engaged and broad reaching.

When you factor in such private donations, the United States is the most generous nation in the world and is playing a very positive role in addressing the needs of the developing world. From education and health care to micro credit loans and poverty elimination, our aid programs are helping lift people from poverty, foster political and economic integration and fight the scourge of diseases like AIDS and malaria.

IRAQ

Make no mistake, there is a great deal to quibble with in terms of the Administration's policies regarding Iraq, both in how they've alienated our allies in the manner they went to war and in how they undertook the reconstruction process.

Let's not forget, however, that the situation in Iraq was untenable. We had in place sanctions that were harming the Iraqi people, but were clearly having little impact on Saddam Hussein's regime. He had kicked out inspectors in 1998 and he was not cooperating with the latest round of weapons inspectors. This left the United States and the international community with a dilemma. Could we allow Saddam Hussein to remain in violation of the U.N. agreement? Given Saddam's willingness to use the most abhorrent kinds of weapons at his disposal against his own people, I didn't believe we could afford to do that. It's just not correct to suggest that this conflict was completely unjustified.

I was disappointed that President Bush failed to garner broad international support in rushing to go to war. I believe the President should have worked more cooperatively with our friends and allies in addressing the threat that Saddam Hussein posed. Further, I am most concerned with the ongoing threat being faced by military and civilian personnel serving in Iraq. I believe we must do everything we can to make sure our troops and civilian workers in Iraq have what they need to protect themselves.

Above all, I believe that we must succeed in our mission in Iraq. In order to ensure that Iraq will not reemerge as a destabilizing force in the Middle East, we must establish security there and help Iraqis build the foundations for a democracy. I will continue working toward that goal.

CONCLUSION
Our nation is faced with a set of challenges very different from those faced by previous generations. As we adjust to better respond to the new reality, I'm confident that our values of freedom and opportunity provide the foundation on which to craft a new foreign policy framework. To win the current battle, we must craft a new foreign policy. We can marshal our resources and expertise to reduce poverty, improve health care and provide education to children who represent the best hope for much of the developing world.

We can build vibrant diplomatic and military alliances that not only improve our nation's security, but forge an international consensus for human rights, freedom and democracy. We need to be a more positive player on the global stage, and that will require an enormous amount of commitment by both leaders and the American public. It's vitally important, and I appreciate the opportunity today to share my vision as to how we go about this task.