FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 18, 2001

Contact: Rob Sawicki
Phone: 202.224.4041

USC Foreign Policy Speech

Thank you for those generous words. It is such a great pleasure for me to be here today at this wonderful institute dedicated to the study of the Jewish role in American life. I am here today to talk about America's foreign policy, and the values that I believe should guide our relationship with the rest of the world in the 21st Century. But first, if you would indulge me, at the Casden institute dedicated to spurring dialogue and achieving greater understanding about what it means to be Jewish in America, I'd like to talk for a few minutes about what I learned as the first Jewish American privileged to be nominated for national office.

One of the unexpected things I learned is that my candidacy provided a wealth of good material to comedians and politicians across the country. On the day Al Gore made the call that changed my life, Larry King had the comedian John Stewart on his program. He asked Stewart: "is the choice of Joe Lieberman a choice about the past or the future?" Stewart said: "are you kidding? On the Jewish calendar, it's the year 5761. This ticket will build a bridge to the 58th Century."

We also had some creative suggestions for slogans for the Gore-Lieberman ticket, such as: Al Gore and Joe Lieberman: no bull, no pork. With malice toward none, but a little guilt for everyone. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your mother. And Gore-Lieberman: we'll work for you, 24/6.

Then there was Florida. One friend said that if you count the votes I got there with Al Gore, and the votes I got with my running mate, Pat Buchanan, I would have won.

Lieberman-Buchanan ticket. Just think of the possibilities. And this one direct from Al Franken: Lieberman-Buchanan, Immigrants gotta love'em, gotta hate'em.

So we had a lot of laughs last year, but we also had a lot to be grateful for. A barrier was broken but not by me. The barrier was broken by Al Gore and the American people who accepted my first-ever candidacy with such respect and warmth. In the end, my experience convinced me that our attitudes about faith and public life issues that you spend a great deal of time talking about here at the Casden Institute have changed considerably, and for the better.

When Al Smith ran for President as a Catholic back in 1928, he pulled into a campaign stop in Oklahoma, and there were crosses burning in the field. As recently as 1960, John Kennedy felt like he had to go to Houston and speak to preachers to reassure them that he didn't answer directly to the Pope. Last year, I am happy to report that I didn't experience one whit of anti-Semitism.

While there was much focus on my faith when I was selected, by the end of the campaign, barely anyone was even mentioning my religion, which was exactly what we had hoped for. And that is powerful evidence just how tolerant and inclusive a nation we have become.

There were wonderful moments along the campaign trail. Early in the campaign, I was shaking hands along the Mississippi River. An elderly woman asked me if I'd lean forward, and I did, and she said, "Senator, we Catholics are for you." Not to be outdone, the lady standing next to her said, "and Senator, we Baptists are for you, too." And I will never forget the Hispanic delegate who held up a sign at a convention rally with two big words: "Viva Chutzpah."

For these people, my faith was a tie that bound us together. Rather than seeing different religions, they saw common values, American values of opportunity and tolerance on the line, and they believe they benefitted from them as I did from the campaign. And they saw the overriding. My parents and my rabbi like their parents and their houses of worship -- taught that our lives are a gift from God, the Creator, and with it came an obligation to serve God with gladness by living as best we could, according to the law and values that God gave to man.

At our best, I believe that our laws and our policies are inspired by those values. We improve our public schools because it fulfills our obligation to care for our children, the most precious of God's creations. We provide health coverage to our seniors because it follows the commandment to honor our fathers and mothers. We protect the environment to uphold our obligation to honor and guard God's work. We pursue civil rights and anti-discrimination protections because as God's children, we all deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect, and have the same opportunity.

These values that all faiths share opportunity, family, responsibility, community have become the everyday language of modern public life. And yet, those same values have too often become not so much a bridge, but a barrier when the conversation moves beyond our borders to the rest of the world. I want to talk with you this evening about how America, as the strongest nation should deal with the six billion other people who live here. What, in other words, should be the basis of our foreign policy?

Should our relationships be premised primarily on classic balance of power security arrangements? Or should we actively support our core values of freedom, opportunity, and the rule of law throughout the world. Let me state my answer to these questions clearly at the outset. I believe we are at our best abroad, as we are at home, when our policies are based on our values.

America is a unique nation because it was founded not on a set of borders, but a set of ideals -- that we are all created equal, that we are each endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, that we should be free to realize the potential God gave every one of us. Those values of freedom and opportunity still define us as Americans. A foreign policy that does not rest on our values cannot ultimately succeed in determining the place Americans want to have in our world, and what we want for the rest of the world's people.

Some of the most hopeful recent developments in the world have come from a concerted effort to make our values real. For example, in Serbia, democracy has swept every inch that tyranny once claimed, and Slobodan Milosevic is under arrest. Is it because the people of Serbia wanted to claim a new birth in freedom? Yes. But it was also made possible by NATO's America-led victories in Bosnia and Kosovo, and because our desire to see justice done led to pressure which required cooperation on the pursuit of war criminals as a condition for further aid.

China has begun to dismantle its command and control economy despite the huge risk. Why? Is it simply meeting the demands of global markets? In part, yes. But it also has decided to fulfill the terms we negotiated for its entry into the WTO.

Northern Ireland now has the fastest-growing economy in the European Union. Is it because they have found a way to set aside their differences to move beyond the Troubles? Yes. But it is also because our love of peace and freedom led America to take a lead role in bringing the two sides together.

Thanks in part to our leadership, today, more than half of the people of the world live under governments of their own choosing for the first time in history. America enters the 21st Century with our economy the strongest it has ever been, with our alliances secure, our military strength unchallenged, and our world largely at peace.

And yet, with the Cold War over, some people say we don't need to play an active role in the world, or to worry about distant conflicts, or to live up to our best values. You could say their view is one part go-it-alone and another part don't-go-at-all.

This debate was front and center during the presidential campaign. Then-candidate Bush worked very hard to distinguish his vision of a proper foreign policy for America from the foreign policy of President Clinton. He articulated a policy based on what he termed "new realism" to focus on America's vital interests and to use America's power effectively to counter what he charged was fuzzy headed multi-lateralism engaged in questionable operations more than was needed to protect America's vital interests.

He said that a Bush Administration would remain involved in the world and work together with our democratic allies in Europe and Asia. But it would put American interests first and not, in his words, dissipate America's strength by intervening in places where America's vital interests were not threatened.

It is common for a new administration to define itself in contrast to its predecessors. These are early days of this Administration, and as our recent encounter with China showed, its leaders are still feeling their way, so it is still too soon to see the full shape of the Bush foreign policy. But the Administration has taken several high profile actions to distance themselves from the Clinton Administration in a whole series of important areas. In no fewer than eight critical areas, President Bush has signaled a pullback, not just from the Clinton record but from the rest of the world.

As I mentioned, in Northern Ireland, President Clinton took the lead in crafting a pact between Catholics and Protestants. President Bush said he would not name a high-level envoy to sustain this tenuous agreement but will let the State Department handle it.

In Korea, President Bush reversed his own Secretary of State, saying the US would effectively abandon the attempt to engage North Korea. This decision was announced during the visit of President Kim of South Korea to Washington and without prior consultation with him.

In the Middle East, President Bush said he will not continue the high-level effort to help reconcile the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In the Persian Gulf, he has pulled back from the economic sanctions on Iraq before crafting an alternative. In Russia, he seems to be withdrawing from support of internal democratic movements and freedom of the press and has reduced both focus and funding for the cooperative effort to reduce Russia's nuclear stockpile. In China, he has abandoned engagement aimed at forming a future strategic partnership, declaring China a strategic competitor to be confronted and opposed. In the Balkans, he has begun, very slowly, to reduce the U.S. force level and avoided acting to stem the outbreak of violence in Macedonia.

And on a global scale, he has withdrawn U.S. support for the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, signaled his opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and announced his willingness to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. All of these decisions were taken without prior consultation with America's staunchest friends and closest allies. Every single day the European newspapers are full of protest from Europeans about our actions. Some suggest that the values shown in the recent American behavior are increasingly at odds with the values of our European allies.

I see from these decisions an emerging pattern of unilateral disengagement from the world and a refusal to act to prevent problems from growing. As one columnist recently wrote, "the Clinton team wrestled with the messy grays of a post-cold war world. The Bush team decided it was easier to bring back the Cold War." The passivity is not only political, but economic. Where the Clinton Administration intervened to prevent the collapse of the Mexican peso, and brought about a successful conclusion to the Asian financial crisis, the Bush Administration has not moved an inch on the Turkish economic crisis, which if not handled could undermine economies in a critical area of the world and leave other allies in Latin America and elsewhere wondering whether we will be there to give them a helping hand or a loan in time of need.

Of course, it is tempting to step back from a policy of robust engagement, to simplify our presence in a complex world, to limit our definition of what is important to America to what seems most easily achievable. But that would be a profound mistake. If we've learned anything over the last 5 decades, we should have learned that for America to remain safe and secure, we must address problems early in their development before they become crises; we must address them as close to the source of the problem as possible; and we must address them with the forces and resources necessary to bring about a successful conclusion.

The threats to America's interests will only grow more dangerous if neglected. Disengagement will become even more consequential because it will allow vacuums to form, which others will rush to fill, in the Middle East, in North Korea, and the Balkans. At best, it will be our European allies at worst, it will be Iraq or Iran. Somewhere in between it will be Russia or China.

Let me give you a few examples. President Bush's National Security Advisor has said that "Russia's economic future is now in the hands of the Russians . . . U.S. policy must concentrate on the important security agenda with Russia." Indeed, that is exactly what has happened the past two months, with spies being exported in both countries, and rhetoric being thrown around that is reminiscent of the Cold War.

We all know that there are problems in Russia. And yes, primary responsibility for solving them rests with the Russians themselves. But let's not deceive ourselves, the problems may be theirs but the consequences belong to all of us. We used to be threatened most by a strong Russia, but today it is Russian weakness that may threaten us more.

It is easy to focus on what Russia has not accomplished the past five years. Yet for five straight elections, each time they were challenged, the vast majority of Russians have voted for a democratic society with a market economy. If Russia's new leaders are tempted to turn back to authoritarianism, they will have to confront more than 65,000 non-governmental organizations, tens of thousands of former state-run enterprises that have been privatized, and more than 900,000 small businesses. These are the natural product of a free society and a tribute to the hard work of the Russian people. But we have also helped by providing assistance.

It would be a grave mistake to step back now. Encouraging Russia to move in the right direction is no guarantee of success. But turning our backs on its people's call for economic assistance or its government's abuse of the free press or its denial of human rights in other words, looking the other way on values this nation has worked to promote for more than 200 years -- will almost certainly push Russia in the wrong direction.

Consider, for example, Russia's nuclear scientists. Today, the Russian economy is struggling. The average salary of a highly-trained weapons scientist in Russia is less than $100 a month. For a small investment, we can help them turn that expertise to peaceful projects that help the world. Or, we can do nothing and pray that each and every one of them resists the temptation to market their expertise to those who wish us harm. The Clinton Administration worked with a bipartisan group of legislators to invest in the former. The Bush Administration wants to gamble with the latter, and in its budget sent to Congress last week has proposed cutting the program by more than 80 percent. That is a mistake, a big mistake, and I'll work with colleagues in both parties to overturn it.

The same goes for Europe. During the election, the Bush campaign caused controversy by saying that then Governor Bush wanted to pull troops out of Europe to focus our military forces on more conventional wars in the Persian Gulf, Korea, and the Taiwan Straights. To date, not only have they gradually begun to draw down forces in the Balkans, they have stayed clear of any leadership in the burgeoning conflict in Macedonia. As former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke pointed out last week, if the United States does not lead events in Macedonia, it will almost certainly be led by them. The recent action by Macedonian Albanians and Bosnian Croats are, in part, direct reactions to a new Administration perceived as more passive in the Balkans, which is inspiring separatists to try to push back the gains of the past five years. If we turn our backs, we will risk seeing a fifth Balkan war that challenges our interests across Europe.

At the same time, how can we expect our close allies in Europe to support our efforts to contain Saddam, or nonproliferation efforts against Iran, and help us build peace in the Middle East and stop conflicts in places likes East Timor and Sierra Leone if we're not willing to meet a minimal responsibility in Europe?

This isn't just a matter of common interest, it's a matter of common sense. From the Balkans to Northern Ireland to Africa to India and Pakistan to the Korean Peninsula, it is clear in the new global age, that regional conflicts will have global consequences. We have seen how conflict and abject poverty in these areas creates recruits for terrorists and those who incite ethnic and religious hatred toward America and our allies; how it fuels a violent rejection of the economic and social order upon which our future depends. Our challenge and responsibility is to diffuse tensions before they threaten our vital interests, and if we cannot, then to stop them as soon after they start as we can.

That's also true when it comes to the global environment. The last time many members of this Administration were in the White House, the environment was regarded as a "soft issue," not a hard security issue. Many in the White House still see the issue the same way. The problem is, the rest of the world does not.

The overwhelming consensus of the world's scientific and political communities is that greenhouse gases from human activity are raising the Earth's temperature. The rates of temperature change are faster than any time in the past 10,000 years. The six warmest years since the 15th Century have all been in the 1990s. Unless we change course, scientists tell us that seas will rise so high they will swallow islands and coastal areas. Storms and droughts will intensify. And diseases like malaria will be borne by mosquitoes to higher and higher altitudes and across borders, threatening more lives.

That's why the world came together in Kyoto in 1997 to set limits on greenhouse gases. I was there. The United States, with four percent of the world's population, produces 25 percent of its greenhouse gases. We have a responsibility to lead in solving that problem. By backing out of the Kyoto treaty without even consulting our allies, President Bush sent a clear and disturbing message that America puts America's interests first and cares little about the rest of the world's concerns.

We live in a world in which we need the support of our friends and allies to protect our nation not just from old threats, but from new ones, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of adversaries and terrorists; and non-military threats, such as organized crime, cyberterrorism, dangers from massive humanitarian disasters, and the spread of pandemics like AIDS, which accounts for 25 percent of all the deaths in the world. Yet, the signals our nation has sent during the past three months have been so unilateral that no fewer than five foreign leaders have been forced to make direct appeals to the President to stay involved in the world. An editorial in a leading German paper even dubbed our new President "Bully Bush."

Already, there are others rushing in to fill the vacuum. For the past two years, America has led the global effort on debt relief. But two months ago, in a conference on debt relief in Britain, in which the entire G-8 and the world community was represented, the American government didn't have a single representative. Now, Britain and Italy are taking the lead. In Korea, our European allies are rushing in to fill the void. And in the Middle East, even Vladmir Putin has suggested he is interested in brokering a solution, and he will try if we don't.

Our extraordinary strength is a blessing. But it comes with a responsibility to carry our weight, instead of merely throwing it around. That means meeting our responsibilities to alliances like NATO. It means shaping treaties from the inside, as President Clinton did with the International Criminal Court, instead of packing up our marbles and going home, as President Bush did with Kyoto. If not, we will run the risk that the rest of the world will resist our power instead of respecting it, and before long the American people will suffer as a result in less security, less wealth, and less pride that we are conducting ourselves internationally according to our best American values.

As former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger has said, we must remember that there is a difference between power and authority. Power is the ability to compel by force and sanctions, and there are times we must use it, for there will always be interests and values worth fighting for. Authority is the ability to lead, and we depend on it for almost everything we try to achieve. Our authority is built on qualities very different from our power: on the attractiveness of our values, on the force of our example, on the credibility of our commitments, and on our willingness to listen to and stand by others.

We must continue to steer a course in the world that enhances not only our power but our authority, while staying true to our oldest and dearest principles. On the day President Bush named Colin Powell as his Secretary of State, the new President said, "our stand for human freedom is not an empty formality of democracy but a founding and guiding principle of (our nation). By promoting democracy, we lay the foundation for a better and more secure world." I couldn't agree more. In the days to come, I look forward to working with the new Administration to advance those principles to build a better America and a better world. Thank you.