Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
At the Center for Strategic and International Studies
“Beyond Iraq: Refocusing Our National Security Strategy”
May 19, 2006
Listen
to Senator Feingold's Remarks
Dr. Hamre, thank you for the kind introduction and for hosting me
here today. It is an honor to be here with you and I appreciate your
long career of distinguished service and of course your very kind words
about me and my work.
That means thanks to Steven Morrison too. Steve, it has been a pleasure
working with you on the HIV/AIDS Task Force as one of its co-chairs.
I appreciate the continued work that you do that pushes us to think
strategically about Africa, about HIV/AIDS, and other critical issues.
And also my thanks to the staff here at CSIS for the good work that
they do, day in and day out.
As the people at CSIS well know, to strengthen our own security, we
have to think well beyond our borders. Today, we face a wide range of
potential and real threats, that are literally, and perhaps more than
ever, all over the map.
To address those threats, and to protect the American people, our country
needs a new national security strategy, one that is not focused on Iraq
to the exclusion of other, more pressing priorities. I’m going
to talk today about the most real security challenges we must face,
and the principles we must adopt if we’re going to successfully
meet those challenges.
But first I’d like to take you to something that happened a few
years ago on one of those spots on the map, because I think it speaks
volumes about how complex the challenges that we face country really
are.
North of Mombasa, Kenya, on the Swahili coast, is a small fishing village
that was the staging ground for the strikes against the Paradise Hotel
and the El Al Arqui airliner in 2002. The mortars that the terrorists
used in that attack came into Kenya through Mombasa Harbor. And I’m
sure many of you are aware of the nature of that area. It’s part
of Kenya but it is a dominantly Islamic population and area.
And it’s how the terrorists brought those explosives in that
is so chilling. One of them posed as a lobster boat fisherman in this
little village for months. At this point my staff are rolling their
eyes because here goes the lobster story again. But I think it’s
instructive. This fisherman got comfortable among the other fishermen,
and when the time was right, remember this is very close to Yemen, to
Somalia, it’s not far away from these place, when the time was
right he floated the explosives used in the attacks through the harbor.
Now, in order for that plan to work, some of those fishermen almost
surely must have looked the other way. And when they did, the explosives
were delivered, and 12 innocent people were killed. This did great damage
to the security view of Kenya and to their tourism industry. And, of
course, let’s not forget, this isn’t just some place in
the world where a random terrorist attack occurred. This was one of
the two places, Nairobi, Kenya, where our embassy was attacked in 1998.
What can we learn from this successful terrorist attack? For one thing,
we are reminded that the fight against terrorism can’t only be
about military options. Obviously, we wouldn’t use kinetic energy
to wipe out an entire community of largely peaceful lobster fishermen.
We can’t simply use weapons to destroy safe havens or recruiting
pools. And, while we can aggressively target potential terrorists, we
can’t base our strategy on the sole assumption that we will catch
every one in time.
What we can try to do – in fact, what we must do -- is address
the conditions that allow a terrorist to work his way into a lobster
fishing community. That means thinking about how to get communities
around the world to reject terrorism and extremism.
We need to give people in countries like Kenya a stake in their own
stability. We need people like those fishermen to have a reason not
to turn the other way when they are faced with growing extremism in
their own communities. How do we do that? We need to address the basis
of terrorism itself, the things that help it help it flourish, because
those are the same things that can kill it at its root.
In other words, we need a strong, comprehensive national security strategy
that actually addresses the complicated, intricate challenges we face
in places like Mombasa.
Unfortunately, we’re failing to adequately address those challenges
right now. We’re failing in part because of our misguided and
burdensome presence in Iraq. We’re failing because of Guantanamo,
and because of our go-it-alone approach to diplomacy, and because of
our failure to hold governments accountable for not abiding by the rule
of law. We’re failing, in other words, in large part, because
of what we’re not doing throughout the rest of the world.
We need a new approach, and we need it now. And we should start by
redeploying our troops from Iraq.
Our military has performed heroically in Iraq, but as long as 130,000
U.S. troops remain in Iraq indefinitely, that country will remain what
we have helped made it -- a crucible for the recruitment and development
of terrorists determined to fight so-called American “occupiers.”
And as long as we are devoting so many of our resources to Iraq, we
will be unable to comprehensively combat the global terrorist networks
that threaten us today, in so many countries around the world. It is
well known, and well documented, that some of our efforts in Afghanistan
are hurt by the diversion of resources to Iraq, but our efforts in many
other countries are suffering as well.
The cost of the Iraq war has been devastating. Obviously, consider
the tragic loss of more than 2400 American servicemen and servicewomen,
and more than 17,800 wounded. Every one of those numbers represents
struggle and heartache for so many American families.
The price tag for Iraq was at one point feared that it could get as
high as $100 billion. Of course, now it's upwards of 320 billion dollars.
Our military recruitment problem is growing, suspicions of American
intentions are rampant in Muslim and Arab countries, and al Qaeda and
its allies are operating in scores of countries around the world.
Many of us warned about the dangers of going to war in Iraq. But I
am not interested today in rehashing those arguments because it’s
becoming increasingly clear to many Americans, even those who initially
supported the war, that our presence in Iraq is weakening us. It’s
critical to our wider effort against terrorism to redeploy from Iraq.
That’s why I filed an amendment to the emergency supplemental
appropriations bill a few weeks ago requiring the Pentagon to draw up
a flexible timeline for redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq by the
end of the year, and we did a great deal to make sure to determine that
this in fact is a realistic goal in the time frame. Obviously, if it
doesn’t start happening soon it’s not. But it is not an
unrealistic goal from the point of view of the military sources we have
talked to.
The President has repeatedly failed to spell out for the American people
when we can expect our troops to redeploy from Iraq. He has refused
to provide a vision for ending our military mission in Iraq, and as
a result a growing majority of Americans have lost confidence in our
purpose, our direction, and our presence in Iraq.
I was blocked procedurally from getting a vote on my amendment. But
I will be looking for the next opportunity to offer it again, because
if we want to strengthen our national security, we must return to our
true national security mission in the wake of 9/11, and that is defeating
the terrorist networks that everyone agrees continue to threaten us.
Let me talk now about some of the threats we face by using some examples.
In each case, it seems to me that our overwhelming dedication of resources
in Iraq tends to distract us or divert us from engaging these situations
as comprehensively as we should to protect the American people.
I’ll start with Indonesia. Indonesia, the largest Muslim country
in the world, the fourth largest country in the world, from a population
point of view, is a critical player in the global fight against Al-Qaeda
and its affiliates. The terrorist organization al-Jamaah al-Islamiyah
(all-Jem-aah-all-Islam-eeyah), also known as J.I., and associated groups
in the region pose a serious threat to Indonesia and to the interests
of the United States, our allies, and our friends. We all know about
the Bali attack but of course there have been attacks in other places
in Indonesia and in Jakarta as well.
Our relationship with the Indonesians has never been more important,
Indonesia’s effectiveness in countering terrorist networks and
other emerging threats hinges on its ability to reform its government,
and to address past crimes and abuses especially by its military, and
to strengthen service delivery by the central and provincial governments.
In February, I had the opportunity to visit Indonesia and met with
President Yudhoyono to discuss some of these issues. I was warmly welcomed,
and was amazed to learn from our ambassador that I was only the second
United States Senator to visit there in the last two years. Compare
that to the many, many visits many of us have made to Iraq, understandably,
and the comparison is stunning to me. I came away from my visit believing
that Indonesia is on a positive trajectory, but that country can’t
do it alone.
We can’t allow the Indonesians’ efforts to fail, nor can
we afford to turn a blind eye to some of the problems with which they
are struggling. In Papua, tensions are rising. Just as they are falling
in Aceh, we all know that one of the reasons they are falling in Aceh
is because of the tsunami, which let people finally decides let’s
try to resolve our differences there. And the military has yet to make
significant progress on divesting its largely hidden and corrupt private
businesses. Now, all of this matters to our national security because
JI is looking for every opportunity it can find to gain a foothold in
that vast country.
We have to broaden our partnership with countries like Indonesia without
compromising certain basic American principles. We must assist the Indonesians
in their quest to build new government capabilities and services to
be an effective partner in the fight against terror, but we also have
to push them toward a strong rule of law, respect for human rights and
accountability for past abuses, so that Indonesians have a stake in
stability and in the country’s progress.
To achieve success, it is critical to connect military and political
assistance. I’ve called on the Administration to create a strategy
that ties together new security assistance with critical reforms in
these other areas. I have yet to see one, and I am very concerned.
We are also struggling to craft a more effective approach to terrorism
in Africa, in places like Mali. This Muslim democracy is one of poorest
countries in the world. Northern Mali is a vast, largely ungoverned
space, and it includes some wonderful things. I had the opportunity
to actually visit Timbuktu if you can believe it. A fascinating, wonderful
thing. But the Malian government is often incapable of projecting authority
or services to the northern third of its territory.
So this makes it a ripe haven for the Salafist (Sal-a-fist) Group for
Preaching and Combat, or the GSPC, a terrorist organization that uses
ancient trade routes and a relatively indifferent population to harbor
its training and movements. Now who are these people? These are people,
many of which, at least their forebears in the 1990s, were 3000 people
that were trained in Afghanistan with Osama Bin Laden, who came back
to Algeria, Algerians, who have spent many years terrorizing the people
of Algeria but they have been pushed out of there into places like Mali.
So this isn’t just any group. These are people that are obviously
buying 100 percent of the philosophy and attitude that was used by those
who attacking us on 9/11.
The Malians I met on an official visit there last year were not most
concerned about terrorism, though they were respectful, but about poverty,
about trying to build a life for their children that is better than
their own lives are today.
That’s the struggle they are engaged in, and it is in the poverty
and desperation that provides an opening for terrorist ideology, that
terrorism can take root. The GSPC has been able to operate in northern
Mali precisely because for populations there stopping them is not a
priority or maybe even a capability and that should be of great concern
to the United States. Just for the record, when I was there last time,
a couple of years ago, last year I was told in this case they were glad
I had come back because I had come there in 1999, I was the only senator
that has been there in that six-year period. The only United States
Senator to visit that country. And think about who’s exploiting
it.
If the U.S. doesn’t make a genuine effort to help the Malian
government create incentives and resources for the populations in the
north to expel terrorists, the GSPC and other terrorist groups will
continue to use this space and will continue to threaten U.S. and regional
interests.
And here’s something else that should be of concern to the U.S.
about Mali.
If the U.S. doesn’t make a genuine effort to work with the Malian
government, we allow a vacuum to form that others can easily fill. Let
me give you an anecdote from my trip there.
When I traveled to Mali, we came back from Timbuktu into Bamako and
they told us we had to kind of move it on our airplane and get out of
the way because someone else was coming into the airport. And I got
into a U.S. embassy vehicle to head into the city. Looking out the car
window, I saw that thousands of cheering Malians were lining the streets,
which had been cleared for V.I.P. travel.
I admit, I was stunned by this outpouring of enthusiasm for the American
ambassador and the less than household name American senator. Then I
realized -- wait a minute, they aren’t here to cheer for us.
Who was lining the streets were tens of thousands of young kids, or
high school aged kids. They were waiting to cheer the motorcade of then
Iranian President Khatami, whose plane had just landed at the airport.
I am told that they let the kids out of school for this.
Now I don’t want to be alarmist about it or exaggerate it, but
I can tell you that it was a startling moment for me, and it should
also be much more than that.
Bamako's warm reception for the Iranian president should be a wake-up
call for U.S. policymakers. Whether or not Mali was hoping to get some
much-needed assistance from Iran at the time, there is no doubt that
if we don’t do much more to reach out to struggling countries
like Mali, other influences may step in to fill the void. And those
influences may not have our best interests at heart.
While Mali has attracted more American interest than many of its neighbors,
our diplomats still struggle to find the resources they need to compete
for hearts and minds there. That short-sightedness in how we allocate
our resources is costly in the long run.
Somalia is a third example, and in many ways the most alarming of all.
Somalia represents to me our government’s failure to adequately
address failing or failed states, and it’s a troubling –
and timely -- story. I am absolutely dumbfounded and have complained
repeatedly as to why our government has failed to develop a comprehensive
strategy for stabilizing Somalia.
Home to al Qaeda, illicit power structures, criminal networks, abject
poverty and dire humanitarian conditions, Somalia demands far more resources
and attention than we are providing.
Just consider this fact: we are now spending 1.6 billion dollars a
week in Iraq, and we spend 2 million dollars a year to support Somalia’s
nascent political structures. This shows how muddled our foreign policy
focus has become, and shows how imbalanced our approach is when it comes
to fighting terrorist networks.
And now, just this week, there are reports of heavy fighting for control
of Mogadishu. The fighting involves Islamic fundamentalists, but there
are real concerns that foreign fighters may have been drawn to the conflict.
Over 140 people died in Mogadishu over the last week in some of the
most violent fighting the city has seen in 15 years.
Meanwhile, Somalia’s Prime Minister is pleading with the U.S.
to work with the transitional government. Somalia’s instability
is a threat to our national security. To support a path to sustainable
peace in Somalia, the Administration needs to develop a comprehensive
strategy for eliminating the root causes of terrorism and instability
in that country. Now, that means using the whole range of political,
economic, and humanitarian resources at our disposal.
I’ve urged the Administration to develop a strategy, and have
recently filed a resolution with Senator Coleman of Minnesota that urges
the Administration to appoint a special envoy to work with our partners
and throughout the region to do just that.
Now, I’ve just laid out some examples that I think illustrate
some of the key challenges our country faces in three extremely important
places around the world. Our government’s current single-minded,
largely military-focused, and often counter-productive approach to fighting
terrorism simply is not capable of meeting those challenges.
So how do we begin to change that?
Well, I think it starts with a return to American values and principles.
If we want the United States to maintain its role in the 21st century,
we have to align our principles and our national security strategy more
effectively.
There are at least three critical tenets of that new strategy:
• Strengthening international institutions and bilateral partnerships
around the world;
• Upholding and promoting respect for human rights; and
• Helping to strengthen the rule of law globally, including especially
elevating the fight against corruption.
To start with the first tenet, the key to success in the fight against
terrorism lies in our ability to develop and sustain strong and mutually
beneficial relationships with a wide variety of partners and allies.
As you all know, we have a tremendous amount of work to do in this
area.
President Bush’s go-it-alone philosophy -- on everything from
global warming to nuclear nonproliferation to regime change in the Middle
East -- has made Americans less safe because it has alienated our allies
and caused many to question our motives, making international consensus
on addressing these issues even more difficult. Instead of acting unilaterally
because we can, we should be working multilaterally because we must.
Obviously, one of the most important institutions is the United Nations.
For all its flaws, and they are real and serious, this institution is
well situated to address some of the major security issues that we face.
Yet the Administration has undermined the work of the U.N. at almost
every turn, and both parties have been weakened as a result. A recent
GAO study found that UN peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than
funding a U.S. force, because the UN is half as expensive and the U.S.
only pays a quarter of the costs. Not only that, but this found that
UN peacekeeping missions were found to be more effective than unilateral
U.S. missions. Yet this Administration too often acts as if we are better
off going it alone.
The African Union is another example. Without a U.S. Ambassador to
the A.U. and without a more robust effort to support the A.U.’s
fledgling capabilities, it will be a while before we can consider the
A.U. an effective partner in areas such as conflict prevention, post-conflict
stabilization, or military intervention.
The A.U.’s role in Darfur has been commendable, given the circumstances,
but support for this institution is needed. The A.U.’s Counterterrorism
Center in Algiers, for example, needs support if it is going to become
a center of excellence for African counterterrorism efforts. The Algerians
gave it about $2 million to get started. The EU has given it solid support.
And yet the U.S. is only prepared to support it with a small library.
We have to seize this opportunity to strengthen international organizations
that will serve as force multipliers or coordinating elements in this
fight, and we have to think more holistically about how to support new
regional and indigenous efforts to fight terrorism, instability, and
corruption.
Second, as we build better relationships with other nations, we must
offer hope directly to people around the world by making a genuine commitment
to human rights, both at home and abroad.
We must demonstrate that we practice the principles we preach. Equivocating
about whether torture is ever acceptable makes it more difficult for
us to hold others accountable for human rights abuses. Supporting dictators
like President Nguema (N-game-a) in Equatorial Guinea who happen to
have oil resources, or President Aliyev (Alee-yev) in Azerbaijan, undermines
our role as a champion of human rights and makes us complicit in a cycle
of repression, corruption, and poverty.
What many haven’t yet realized is that this cycle has a significant
impact on our national security. We must make sure that America remains
a beacon of hope around the world, not a source of resentment. We must
make it clear that we will no longer tolerate regimes that mouth allegiance
to U.S. policies while they repress, torture, and kill their people.
We must also realize that it’s all too easy for terrorists to
insinuate themselves into places where human rights are being violated.
One of our strongest allies in southeast Asia is facing this very problem.
And we had an opportunity to explore this on the same trip we went
to Indonesia.
The Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand is not yet connected to
international terrorist networks thankfully. But unless the Thai government
ends its heavy-handed approach and abuse of human rights that could
change. We need to work with Thai leaders to enhance respect for human
rights and to ensure that their actions do not create a situation ripe
for exploitation by terrorist networks looking for new recruits.
But again, we must make a genuine commitment to human rights ourselves
before we can effectively encourage other countries to do the same.
The U.S. decision to vote against the new UN Human Rights Council, and
its subsequent decision not to participate in that Council, is a perfect
example of not practicing what we preach. Rather than take a role in
crafting the new global human rights body, the United States was one
of four countries -- four -- to vote against it.
The new Council is far from perfect, but it is a significant improvement
over the previous Commission -- and the Administration apparently was
willing to see it fail when it didn’t get its way on everything.
It’s a clear sign that they are not willing to engage in the kind
of consensus-building that we need in the area of human rights to wage
an effective fight against terrorism.
Finally, human rights abuses create an atmosphere where terrorism can
take root, and so do rampant corruption and the absence of the rule
of law.
Transparency International’s “Corruption Index” shows
us that, not surprisingly, corruption thrives in poor countries that
are least capable of enforcing the rule of law. The result is a lawless
environment where terrorist groups and extremist ideology can flourish.
Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Nigeria, Chad, and Angola all rank among the
most corrupt countries in the world, and are all home to very real threats
of political instability, and in the worst cases, terrorist networks.
I remember a few months before 9/11, not completely understanding what
I was seeing, but being in the Islamic community of Kano, Nigeria, and
seeing kids on the street selling pictures of Osama Bin Laden, a county
that is greatly affected by corruption.
I don’t need to tell you how devastating the impact of corruption
has been and continues to be around the world. But a few words about
why it matters to us is warranted. Simply put, those countries with
the highest rates of corruption are the least able to work with us to
combat terrorist threats or root out the conditions that breed extremism
in their own backyard. Again, I don’t want to return to the lobster
vote, but let’s face it, Kenya used to be the jewel of Africa,
but it is now got one of the worst ratings in any country of the world
on the corruption index. It is a place where corruption has been one
of the greatest threats to that country and its progress. I think this
clearly relates to the terrorist threat as well.
People become disaffected when they see that hard work and integrity
matter less than knowing the right people and being able to pay the
necessary bribes. Instability and resentment undermine economic productivity,
political order, and ultimately, international security.
In countries where corruption thrives, the U.S. must step in and offer
concrete ways to stamp it out, bring stability to those societies, and
restore people’s faith in the rule of law. Most importantly, we
have to start treating this as a component in our fight against terrorism,
rather than as a distraction from that central mission.
To defeat the terrorists who threaten us, we must repair and strengthen
our relationships with our allies, and strengthen international organizations.
We must ensure that American foreign and national security policies
uphold true American principles, respecting human rights and the rule
of law -- not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because
it’s the right strategy to strengthen our own security.
Meeting the challenges we face will take an all-out effort, including
our advanced military and intelligence capabilities, as well as powerful
diplomatic and development efforts. We will also have to make hard decisions
about when and where to engage, and we must make these decisions consciously
rather than by default.
A comprehensive approach will be difficult, even for the most powerful
nation in the world, because we must connect with people in the farthest
reaches of the most distant communities. In fact, being the most powerful
nation in the world may make this approach even tougher, because we
need to understand the hopes and fears of people who feel powerless
and voiceless. But we are up to this challenge, and we can muster serious
resources, and creative diplomatic strategies, to meet it head on.
But to do that, we can no longer pretend that our massive presence
in Iraq is serving that country, or, more importantly, that it is serving
our own national security. It isn’t.
Our engagement in Iraq is weakening our ability to wage an aggressive
and full-scale fight against global terrorist networks and the conditions
that allow them to operate and grow.
We must build a comprehensive national security strategy that seeks
to bring stability and progress to people in places like Somalia, Mali,
and Indonesia. Those people must believe that their communities and
governments will protect them, by, for example, stamping out corruption,
respecting human rights and enforcing the rule of law. Otherwise, like
the fishermen in that village in Kenya, they might decide to look the
other way when terrorists seek to capitalize on their disenfranchisement.
Moments like those are defining moments in the fight against terrorism.
We can’t win this fight unless, every day, people in these very
different places around the world want to stop terrorism as much as
we do. That’s the challenge we face, and that is why a comprehensive
approach to fighting terrorism is our best hope to achieve our true
national security mission: protecting the American people from the terrorist
networks that threaten our country.
Thank you. I’ll be glad to take a few questions.
(applause)
### end of speech
Q: Thank you Senator, Dmitri Sider of commerce on Russian business and
political daily. A few days ago you said that Russia is one of the countries
you have concerns about, will you elaborate on that?
One of the real challenges of this post 9/11 era is that there’s
a tendency to not only make mistakes like become overly focused on Iraq,
but even as we talk about some of the places that I was talking about,
to forget about incredibly important countries such as Russia. Russia
will be an incredibly vital aspect of our relationships in the world
and our own national security. And frankly there are serious problems
with the direction of Russia. In terms of protection of Democratic institutions,
in terms of the way that Russia is sometimes treating its neighbors
through the use of energy resources or the denial of energy resources.
In order for us to have the kind of relationship with Russia that I
think we all hope would happen after the Cold War, that nation and the
leadership of that nation have to adhere to some basic principles they
have espoused. And I think many of us are worried things are moving
in the wrong direction at this point. I think it is one of our top priorities
to make it clear, whether at the G8 or at other opportunities, that
there is a point at which this simply doesn’t work and I think
the time is now. I think the situation is getting worse rather quickly.
Q: My name is (inaudible) from an Anselm Italian new agency. Senator,
there are a couple of articles in the New York Times and the Washington
Post of today about the new prime minister of Italy that said “we
consider the war in Iraq and the occupation of the country a grave error.
It has not resolved but complicated the situation of security.”
What do you think about it?
A: First, I want to say that, as one who voted against the Iraq War,
I wanted us to succeed once we went in there, and we are deeply grateful
to countries like Italy that have helped us. And that is, I think, very
important to repeat, and I want to stand with the President on that.
The words you just spoke are not different from what I just said. I
don’t use foreign countries’ observations about this as
my basis for coming to that conclusion, but when a country like Italy
or a leader of a country like Italy starts saying, after they’ve
already helped out in Iraq, that this is something that didn’t
work out the way we planned I think we need to listen. It’s reflecting
the fact that throughout Europe I don’t think they’re feeling
safer. I think they’re feeling more threatened from the terrorist
networks than they did prior to 9/11, for obvious reasons, whether you
look at Madrid or Istanbul or London. So I respect what has been said
by the leaders of Italy.
Q: (name was inaudible) of foreign policy association. Senator, I have
a very basic question. And that is, most of the countries you have cited
as Muslim countries and they are mostly poor countries, and there’s
a lack of education and an abundance of corruption, and these are the
people who fall prey to the wrong interpretation of Kuran, and how could
we spread a correct education under major programs which would be a
good solution for terrorism?
A: Education. Absolutely. Well this is, without a doubt, one of the
most important elements and I spoke long enough as it was. But had I
had more time, I would have said something about what I’ve heard
around the world in terms of the influence, sometimes, of educational
influences that have come from different regions to places like Indonesia.
Now my understanding about Islam in Indonesia is that it has been relatively
moderate. In fact, I think it borrows some from some earlier Buddhist
and Hindu routes that preceded Islam in Indonesia. So this is not a
place where radical, extreme version of the Kuran or Islam has been
inherent. What I understand is a lot of the influence has come from
the Middle East, people that have come there to create schools. And
others have said that in modern times people who go to pilgrimage or
Haj, in past generations it was impossible for people from that far
away to go and to be exposed to this sort of thing. It is critical in
places like Indonesia and Pakistan and other places in the world that
there is an alternative form of Islamic education, and that is something
that all of us need to try to promote so that people can have a vision
of Islam that Muslims tell me is the appropriate vision of this great
religion.
Q: Tazee Schafer from CSIS, the G8 is going to be meeting in not too
long, 8 countries that get together every year to talk about how they
can cooperate to manage big problems in the world. What do you see as
the main lines of the areas where you would like to see the G8 countries
cooperate in order to fulfill your vision, and what should we be trying
to accomplish in this setting?
A: Well, obviously, first I would like to see them cooperate on what
I discussed today, which is the global effort against terrorist networks
that have ill will toward all members of the G8. That means trying to
work together to promote the institutions I talked about, to use their
good offices and their bilateral, multilateral relationships to require
elimination of corruption and the standing up for human rights. At the
same time, I want to see the G8 continue to deal with horrible problems
in the world such as pandemics, whether it be the HIV/AIDS problem that
I have spent a great deal of time on or the possibility of the avian
flu problem. Those countries, with the wealth that they have, have got
to signal to the rest of the world a seriousness about that and continue
to lead the world on it. Clearly these countries have to do as much
as they can working together as a group to encourage countries like
North Korea and Iran to drop their nuclear intentions. When they asked
John Kerry and George Bush what was the biggest threat to the world
I probably would have said terrorist networks, but they made a perfectly
good answer, they said nuclear proliferation, and nuclear threats. Really
nothing can be more important that these countries signal to the world
that they intend to lead on trying to resolve those problems. So those
are some of the matters, but again, I see those countries as having
an opportunity, and the United States has to take this opportunity to
work with them to deal with this terrorist threat.
Q: U.S. correspondent with a German newspaper. I would like to comment
on the conflict around Iran’s nuclear program. How can we adopt
your ideas about building better relationships, better alliances with
your allies to solve those problems. Some of your European allies, also
my country, would like to see the United States to enter direct talks
with Iran about the nuclear program for two reasons: one, only the United
States can deliver what Iran is asking for, international acknowledgment
and security guarantees. And second, even if those both fail it might
persuade China and Russia that it’s not the fault of the United
States that we can’t come to an agreement but Iran’s fault
and that would improve the chances and opportunities to get sanctions
against Iran. How do you stand on that? Direct talks to Iran on the
nuclear issue.
A: First, let me say that, and this is a difficult thing to say the
way I want, but it want to be clear, when the President says that he
doesn’t take any option of the table I think that’s what
a President should say. In order words, you don’t literally say
that we would ever do anything to prevent ourselves from being able
to defend ourselves as a matter of self-defense. But that shouldn’t
be the emphasis in our talks and in our efforts. Nor am I overwhelmed
by the diatribe that the President of Iran sent to the President. I
think what was said is not significant or meaningful. The fact that
he sent a letter. Interesting. Having said all that, I think it is time
for us to start thinking seriously, and many people are talking about
this, of some direct talks in a multilateral setting in combination
with a sanctions approach. In other words, I don’t think it’s
an either-or. I think to not have the reality or the possibility of
sanctions as a part of these multilateral talks would be a mistake and
give Iran too much of a free pass. But I am going to say that it is
time for us to seriously think about a multilateral approach to direct
talks that we would try to participate in. And I would be eager to see
the administration consider that.
Q: Thank you, John Bradshaw, Freedom Investment Project. Senator, I
was struck as you laid out your vision for strengthening institutions,
upholding human rights, and the rule of law, and fighting corruption,
that you did not discuss the idea of democracy promotion. And I wondered
if you could lay out for us how you see the peaceful support for democratic
transitions and democratic oppositions as fitting into your vision.
A: Well, of course, not only would I have spent a fair amount of time
on it had I had time, it is obviously critical. You know, I think this
is one that we understand a little better than some of the others, this
is one that if the course of things had gone better in Iraq, at this
point maybe they still will, that could be helpful there. But I certainly
believe that the promotion of democracy is critical to making sure that
people don’t feel disenfranchised. You could take examples such
as Tanzania, where the election disputes in Zanzibar, where there were
concerns that democracy isn’t being respected there, that there
are problems with the voting. You might say, well why is he talking
about Zanzibar? Well, it’s in the same region. It’s basically
100 percent Islamic area, but there are some serious tensions within
that area and there are, I believe, potentially foreign potential terrorist
influences that can exploit a situation where people think that their
democratic rights have been frustrated. So, of course this is part of
the strategy and I would list it very high.
Q: Michael Stina, German Business Daily Senator, you’d just been
asking very clearly about withdrawal of the American troops from Iraq.
I wonder now to what extent this is conventional wisdom within your
party, and if so, to what extent is this going to be addressed in the
upcoming midterm elections?
A: Well, I certainly don’t dare to speak for my party on its
conventional wisdom. You’ve got the wrong guy for that. But, you
know, I think that most people, in fact I think most Americans now apart
from the Democratic Party really do understand that having this force
on the ground there is counterproductive and that we’re not solving
the problems simply by having our troops in danger. We did have 40 senators,
including 39 Democrats, maybe it was 38, vote for a timetable concept
back in October. I fear that this has slipped a little bit, which puzzles
me because the people on Fox News aren’t even standing for the
war anymore. And, I mean nobody really thinks this is working out the
way we intended and people are looking for an answer to how to get our
troops out. I think that it is really an American consensus and it’s
just time for Washington to catch up regardless of what party is involved.
Q: Thank you, Mahmoud Halrabi, with Al Jazeera’s Washington Bureau.
You talked a lot about the role of the UN and that we are failing because
of Guantanamo, as you said it. In light of this recent report by the
UN of the importance of closing not only Guantanamo Bay but all secret
US prisons, what can you say is the role that torture plays in foreign
policy, as well as what your feelings are on keeping Guantanamo open?
A: Well I don’t think torture, and I’m not saying where
torture occurs or where it doesn’t occur, but I will say this
that torture should have no role in our foreign policy. We made an effort
in the Senate to make it clear that we believe that and I have tried
on every occasion whether asking questions of the current Attorney General
or even with General Hayden and others to make it clear that the administration
respects the fact that that is not American policy and should not be
American policy. I think that many of those in the international community
that are calling for us to move away having Guantanamo are on the right
track. It is costing us so much in public relations as well as the feelings
people have about what may or may not be going on there that we at least
need to consider the possibility of doing something else. It may not
be in our interests as well as involving some very serious questions.
Q: Good afternoon, Senator. Dan Riley from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Speaking of General Hayden, certainly the director of the CIA is a key
part of our nation’s national security strategy. Can you comment
on how the confirmation process is progressing, specifically how he’s
done in addressing questions about whether or not he misled Congress
with respect to wiretapping? And finally, can you give us any indication
to how you may vote on this issue?
A: Well, you know, I had concerns going in, not about General Hayden
the professional or General Hayden the human being. I mean, I am impressed
with him. I am impressed with his record, he’s enormously capable.
I also find him easy to talk to and often forthcoming. There is a greater
problem here, and I was candid with the general about this both in private
and in public. And that is that he, along with the President and others,
were the architects of an illegal wiretapping program that I think flies
in the face of the Constitution. To be asked to vote for somebody who
does not pull back from that, who continues as he did yesterday under
my questioning to say that Article II of the Constitution, under the
Commander in Chief powers, allows him to do this regardless of the FISA
statute in clear law is deeply troubling. And, as I pressed him, I said
your answer cannot be that I followed along as long as the President
asked me. I think he has an independent obligation to follow the law
as a person who would be confirmed by the United States Senate. Now
he may sincerely believe that Article II of the Constitution can override
any act of Congress. I think that’s wrong. I think that changes
our system of government. And, unless he is able to withdraw from that
extreme notion without any personal animus whatsoever, it would be very
difficult for me to vote for him.
Thanks so much everybody
| 