Senator Clinton Addresses New American Strategies for Security and Peace Conference

Senator Clinton Addresses "New American Strategies for Security and Peace" Conference

"Thank you, John, for that introduction. I want to compliment you for all the hard work that you have put into the creation of the Center for American Progress, an institution that I am convinced will be a tremendous force in engaging in the war of ideas so critical to our country's future. And there is no better leader for that effort than John Podesta who has the warrior spirit and strategic mind needed for such an endeavor. I also want to thank Bob Kuttner at the American Prospect and Dick Leone at the Century Foundation for their work on this conference.

Today's conference, "New American Strategies for Security and Peace" comes at a critical point in our nation's history and I commend the Center for American Progress, the American Prospect and the Century Foundation for putting together from what is, by all accounts, an outstanding program.

Today is a critical moment, not just in our history, but in the history of democracy. As we seek to build democratic institutions in Iraq, and we in this room push for us to reach out to our global partners in this endeavor, this nation must remember the tenets of the democratic process that we advocate.

The issue I'd like to address is whether we apply the fundamental principles of democracy - rule of law, transparency and accountability, informed consent -not only to what we do at home but to what we do in the world. There can be no real question that we must do so because foreign policy involves the most important decisions a democracy can make—going to war, our relations with the world and our use of power in that world.

But the fact is that new doctrines and actions by the Bush Administration undermine these core democratic principles - both at home and abroad. I believe they do so at a severe cost."

In our efforts abroad, we now go to war as a first resort against perceived threats, not as a necessary final resort. Preemption is an option every President since Washington has had and many have used. But to elevate it to the organizing principle of American strategic policy at the outset of the 21st century is to grant legitimacy to every nation to make war on their enemies before their enemies make war on them. It is a giant step backward.

In our dealings abroad, we claim to champion rule of law, yet we too often have turned our backs on international agreements. The Kyoto Treaty, which represents an attempt by the international community to meaningfully address the global problem of climate change and global warming. The biological weapons enforcement protocol. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This unwillingness to engage the international community on problems that will require international cooperation sends a clear signal to other nations that we believe in the rule of law - if it is our law as we interpret it. That is the antithesis of the rule of law. The Administration argues that international agreements, like the Kyoto treaty, are flawed. And the fact is they have some good arguments. When the Clinton Administration signed the Kyoto Protocol it said that, working, inside the tent, it would try to make further improvements. But rather than try to make further improvements from inside the process, the Bush Administration stomped out in an effort to knock over the tent. That is not the prudent exercise of power. It is the petulant exercise of ideology.

In our dealings abroad, we more often than not have promoted, not the principles of international cooperation, but the propensity for an aggressive unilateralism that alienates our allies and undermines our tenets. It deeply saddens me, as I speak with friends and colleagues around the world, that the friends of America from my generation tell me painfully that for the first time in their lives they are on the defensive when it comes to explaining to their own children that America truly is a good and benign nation. Their children, too often, have seen an America that disregards their concerns, insists they embrace our concerns and forces them to be with us or against us. Our Declaration of Independence calls for "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," yet this Administration quite simply doesn't listen to our friends and allies. From our most important alliances in Europe to relations with our neighbors in this hemisphere, this Administration has spanned the range of emotions from dismissive to indifferent. Ask President Vincente Fox, who staked his Presidency on a political alliance with Mexico's historically controversial ally to the north, only to discover that he got no farther north than Crawford, Texas.

If we are to lead this world into a wholly democratic future, we must first be consistent in the principles we champion and the ones we pursue.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the transparency of government decisions. Without such transparency, how can leaders be accountable? How can the people be informed? Without such transparency-openness and information—the pillars of democracy lose their foundation.

Of course in a democracy, there always is tension between the information that the Executive Branch needs to keep secret and the information that must be provided to the public to have an informed citizenry. There are no easy answers to striking the right balance. But we must always be vigilant against letting our desire to keep information confidential be used as a pretext for classifying information that is more about political embarrassment than national security. Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a propensity that is confined to one party or the other. It is a propensity of power that we must guard against. Because when that happens, we move away from the bedrock principle of informed consent that governs all state actions in a democracy. Getting back, once again, to our founders who I think were not only extraordinary statesmen, but brilliant psychologists - they understood profoundly the dangers and temptations of power. The balance of power that they enshrined in our Constitution and our system of government was a check on all of our human natures and the propensity for anyone, no matter how convinced they are of the righteousness of their cause and view of the world, to be held in a check and a balance by other institutions.

Since 9/11, this question has much more salience since the War on Terror will often be fought in the shadows outside the public limelight. New doctrines of preemption raise profound questions about democratic oversight by making decisions effecting war and peace. They also raise profound questions about the quality of the intelligence information that is not open to public scrutiny. One of the most critical issues that we confront is what is wrong with our intelligence, the gathering and the analysis and the use?

Anybody who follows what is going on Capitol Hill is aware that we are locked in a partisan conflict as to how far to go in analyzing the intelligence with respect to Iraq -with the other side complaining that we can look to the intelligence community, but we cannot look at the decision makers. We can't look at the uses to which the intelligence was put and we can't look at the particular viewpoint that was brought to that analysis. I think that is a profound error and undermining to our democratic institutions.

The American people, and indeed the international community, need to have confidence that when the U.S. government acts, it is acting in good faith - sharing information where appropriate and developing appropriate mechanisms to insure that power is not being abused. A perception that our government is not providing honest assessments of the rationale for war or is unwilling to admit error will diminish the support for U.S. foreign policy of the American people and the international community. The American people will be far more willing to accept the Administration's statement's about what is going right in Iraq if they believe that the administration is more forthright about what is going wrong. It is difficult to convince people that everything is fine when we are asking them to essentially shelve their common sense and human experience.

An example that hits close to home for me can be found in the administration's approach to the investigation surrounding 9/11. As Senator of New York, there is no more searing event than what happened to us on September 11th. My constituents have a right to know all the facts of how our government was prepared - or not-for the attacks. Yet, over the weekend, we learned that the 9/11 Commission, charged with the important task of investigating how 9/11 happened, complains that it isn't getting access to all the documents that it needs. This is a hugely important issue and one that must be addressed. The lack of transparency on the part of the Bush administration has forced Governor Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, to threaten subpoenas. This should not be happening.

As bad as it was for Vice President Cheney to keep secret how the administration developed its energy policy - this is far worse. The 9/11 commission is not trying to embarrass the President, any former Presidents, or anyone else. It is trying to learn what happened - what went wrong - in hopes that we can become better prepared to protect ourselves from future attacks. In taking this action, the Administration unnecessarily raises suspicions that it has something to hide-that it might use national security to hide mistakes. That is not necessary or appropriate.

Meanwhile, on Iraq, the Bush Administration describes progress on many fronts in direct contravention to what we are hearing every day. There undoubtedly are many instances where U.S. efforts in Iraq are successful. But what is going right should not delude us about what is going wrong. There is too much at stake to treat war as a political spin zone.

We need to level with the American people - the good, the bad and the ugly. For the simple fact is that we cannot fail in Iraq On that fundamental principle, I am in full and profound agreement with the President. The stakes simply are too high. That means we need to improve our transparency and credibility in Iraq. In the recent $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill passed by the Senate, an amendment that I offered, and which was included in the final bill, would require GAO audits of these opaque supplemental appropriations. Another amendment that I co-sponsored with Senator Harkin would require the GAO to examine the level of profits being made by U.S. contractors in Iraq. This is a historic mission that our government has encouraged, going back to George Washington, to make sure that no private company profited off the spoils of war. We need to assure the American people that their money is being spent wisely, assure the Iraqi people that it is being spent in their interest and assure the world that it is not being spent for profiteering by American companies. I understand both of these amendments, my amendment and the one I co-sponsored with Senator Harkin, are the subject of some dispute by the administration. And in fact, I understand that the majority party has been advised to ensure the final package doesn't include those amendments. I can only hope that they have a change of mind. They are creating a level of mistrust in our government by our citizens for which we will reap the consequences for years to come.

As we discuss and debate these issues, let us remember the simple fact that we remain at war. That is not a fact lost on the men and women stationed in Iraq. It is not a fact lost on their families who sit at home worrying about their well-being. It should not lead to the administration refusing to release injury figures. We should be willing to admit the price that is being paid by these brave young men and women to pursue this policy. I believe that the Executive Branch has a strong prerogative on national security issues. As Senator, I have supported that prerogative. But the men and women elected to serve in the Congress also have a great deal of wisdom to bring to bear. And quite honestly, my friends, things have not gone so well in Iraq that we have a single mind to waste.

Recent articles in The New York Times and Newsweek report that many Republicans share the frustration that comes from lack of genuine consultations - failure to construct a genuine bipartisan consensus for the sacrifices we are asking Americans to make. My Republican colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Hagel, who is speaking at this conference, have cautioned the Administration of the dangers of a failure to be open and honest with the American people on the situation in Iraq.

As Senator Hagel and others have suggested, Congress needs be more than just a rubber stamp for the Administration's policies. Tell me what war American has won without seeking, achieving, and maintaining a bipartisan consensus.

President Truman worked closely with Senator Vandenberg after WWII to secure U.S. support for the United Nations. President George H.W. Bush consulted closely with Democratic congressional leaders during the first Gulf War. My husband consulted closely with Senator Dole and other Republican leaders during the military action in Bosnia and Kosovo.

In giving Iraqis more of a say and in making transactions and contracting more open, the U.S. simply is practicing the habits of democracy - inclusion, empowerment and openness. Fundamentally, this is about trust -winning and earning the trust of the Iraqi people and trusting in the Iraqi people who eventually are going to be left to govern themselves and keeping the trust of the American people. I cannot stress strongly enough how significant it is that the American people across the board, are beginning to ask such serious questions about our direction in our efforts to pursue a course in Iraq, but also from the Middle East to North Korea as well. An unwillingness of the Administration to be more forthright can undermine the greatest capital we have, the capital of human trust between a government and the governed. I think we're on the edge of losing both the confidence of the Iraqi people and of the American people. We can prevent that from happening with a heavy dose of straight talk.

At the same time that we are trying to build a democratic society in Iraq, we must abide by those basic principles that we hold dear and demonstrate that we are willing to be open and have partnerships and build coalitions that are more than just in a name.

I think this moment in American history is wrought with danger and challenge. If you look back at our security and goals in WWII they were clear, the Cold War was clear, the post Cold War era, prior to 9/11, was a little more muddy because it wasn't as obvious what our strategic objectives were and how we would achieve them.

Now we do have, once again, a very clear adversary. But just proclaiming the evil of our adversary is not a strategy; just assuming that everyone will understand that we are well motivated and people to be trusted is beyond the range of human experiences that I understand. This administration is in danger of squandering not just our surplus which is already gone in financial terms, but the surplus of good feeling and hopefulness and care and that we had in almost global unanimity after 9/11. We are a resilient, optimistic and effective people and I'm confident that we can regain our footing, but it needs to be the first order of business, not only for the administration, but also for Congress and the American public. It is my hope this conference will provide more ammunition and more support for those of use who are trying to get back on track and to give America the chance to lead consistent with our values and ideals. Thank you very much.