Remarks Prepared for Delivery…

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about America’s role in the world, and the challenges we face as we build a more peaceful, just and prosperous world than the one we inherited.

One may ask, why address foreign policy when the recession dominates our public voice and campaigns? I agree that the economy is our top issue but a careful and experienced leader – as our new Senator should be – must know that foreign policy has at times been more than just important. As a free people, foreign policy decisions have been critical to the survival of this Great Republic.

During the Revolution, Benjamin Franklin’s diplomatic mission to the French court helped turn the tide. In the Civil War, diplomats like Charles Francis Adams prevented British recognition of the Confederacy. And in our own time, Truman’s Marshall Plan and the NATO military alliance were the keys to winning the Cold War.

This is our fifth election since September 11, and we’re still at war in the country where those attacks were planned. Americans still risk their futures in Afghanistan and Iraq so that our futures will be more secure. We made many mistakes. But we corrected them. The men and women who paid the price for those mistakes are still determined to spare our country the catastrophe of defeat.

Our combat mission in Iraq is nearing its end, and we will leave having won a very costly victory. We have to remain engaged in the political and economic development of Iraq to ensure the gains so many brave Americans sacrificed so much to secure are not lost after they return. But the day is fast approaching when Americans will no longer fight or die there.

President Obama committed more troops to Afghanistan to turn around a war that had been going badly. I support his decision. Success can only be achieved by a strategy that protects the Afghan people, gives their clan and tribal leaders authority and encourages them to back a policy that does not wage Jihad on American or European cities.

It will not be easy. The recent leak of classified information about Afghanistan was cowardly and may cost American lives. But it did not tell us anything new. We have a very tough fight in Afghanistan. My faith in the Americans who fight for us, and the General who commands them tells me we will succeed. America will be safer for it.

I disagree with the President’s decision to set an arbitrary date for beginning our withdrawal from Afghanistan. For our troops to succeed, Afghan leaders who back us must be convinced we will not abandon them before we achieve a sustainable victory, backed by an Afghan military capable of expanding the gains we and our European allies won.

The Taliban is back, funded with hundreds of millions in heroin profits. To be clear, NATO and the Afghan government face a new narco-Taliban that poses an extraordinary danger.

Right now, the Taliban warns Afghanis that after we begin to withdraw next summer they will be killed for cooperating. That is counterproductive to our shared goal of Afghanistan at peace with her neighbors. I hope Republican and Democratic leaders who put the long term safety of America first will join together to convince the administration to reconsider the policy.

Americans are appropriately focused on Iraq and Afghanistan. But we have other challenges that demand our attention. We will still face these challenges long after we have, at long last, brought our forces home from those two troubled countries.

I was born two years before the Berlin Wall was built. Many voters this year were born after it was torn down. The Cold War, the conflict that shaped the 20th Century is history. And “history” is often a designation people give to events they believe are irrelevant to their lives and futures.

But the beginning and end of the Cold War were pivotal events. They marked the start of new eras in history, which required new ways of thinking, new institutions, new energy, courage and creativity to address the challenges they presented.

They required Americans to pursue the same strategic goals across many presidencies even while petty partisans disagreed. During much of the Cold War, we sustained a bipartisan policy, regardless of short term political advantage or gripes with the leaders actually in the ring making decisions. During the critical hours, Presidents and Senators embraced the better angels of their nature, understanding we were Americans first, leaders of the greatest experiment in human liberty and freedom in history. Democrats and Republicans reflected the unity of Americans deployed overseas to secure our values first and interests second.

From Truman to Reagan, American administrations knew isolationism was a failure — America must be engaged in the world, and must lead it safely through a dangerous conflict with a militarily powerful and ideologically antithetical adversary. Our European allies shared the burden, like DeGaulle, Brandt and Thatcher, knowing that we stood for the value of the individual, and the freedom to rise to each person’s potential.

In short, we had the conviction of our own convictions.

We all understood some responsibilities were too important, too sacred, to sacrifice to partisanship. These men and women made the future better than the past.

That is the task that confronts us today. The post Cold War era is still in its inception. We will be its authors and this time is our test.

There are lessons we learned from history that are as relevant today. As we take charge, we hear echoes of past debates.

One debate is as old as our Republic: the debate between so called realists and idealists. But those distinctions are crudely defined and misapplied.

They go something like this: Realists see the world as it is, not the way it should be. They believe foreign policy should be restricted to the protection of America’s security and her economic interests to preserve balance of power, even if we do business with dictators. They do not believe we should advance our democratic values where the ruling regimes do not share them.

Idealists believe we have a moral imperative to promote basic human rights — life, liberty, government by consent, equal justice — everywhere they are denied, and our security and economic interests rarely, if ever, excuse relationships with despots who abuse human rights. Realists call that meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, and not the legitimate business of statecraft.
These are crude stereotypes and I tried to do justice to their inadequacies. But neither approach worked in U.S. foreign policy exclusive of the other.

Americans are practical and idealistic people. We see the world as it is, but believe – perhaps more than our predecessors - it can be made better. Our grandparents sacrificed a great deal to make it so. We see it not only as a moral obligation, but as an effective means to protect our security. In this new century, we must be the “realistic idealists”.

Let me give a policy example that underscores the value of this worldview.
The most dangerous threat we face today is the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and their acquisition by states that sponsor terrorists. No responsible person in either political party disagrees with that.

Therefore, preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is the top challenge today.

Senator Obama campaigned for greater engagement with the Government of Iran as the best means of discouraging its nuclear ambition. As President, it became our policy. But engagement is a tactic, not a strategic goal. If it does not work; if it does not protect our interests; what is realistic about continuing it?

When engagement is pursued as a goal and other measures with better chances of success are halfheartedly pursued so we can continue engagement, it does not advance our interests. It undermines them.

The most important Iranian development is the growing popular opposition to the regime. Their demand to be governed by consent not only appeals to our ideals, but offers an opportunity to improve our security and the stability of the Middle East. A democratically-elected Iranian government would be less interested in war with the West, the end of Israel or terrorist sponsorship than it would be with the income, health and education of the Iranian people.
But in its engagement, the administration’s support for the opposition has been, to put it charitably, muted and ineffective.

Meanwhile, meaningful economic sanctions are left unenforced. Relying on the United Nations to impose effective sanctions will not work as long as veto-wielding Security Council members, Russia and China, are more concerned with protecting short-term and small economic interests in Iran rather than ensuring nuclear war does not break out in the Middle East.

So what are we left with if our policy consists mostly of unproductive engagement, and waiting for the UN to do something it will not?

Will we force Israel, which correctly perceives the mortal danger of a nuclear Iran, to remove this threat alone?

That is a dangerous abdication of our responsibility. Israel cannot and should not be expected to acquiesce to a nuclear-armed regime that routinely threatens its existence, and provides arms to the terrorists who attack her citizens. But the prospect of a nuclear Iran is not a threat to Israel alone – it threatens the entire region, Europe and the United States.

So what does an effective bipartisan foreign policy with Iran look like?

One of the most effective sanctions we can impose is cutting off Iranian imports of gasoline. Despite its abundant oil reserves, Iran imports up to 40 percent of its gasoline. Denying them those imports will seriously injure the already dysfunctional Iranian economy, making it hard for Ahmadinejad to complete his nuclear arsenal in the face of his own public’s unrest.

Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ) and I introduced legislation adding gasoline to the list of prohibited investments in the Iran Sanctions Act, which already prohibits investment in Iran’s oil and gas sector. President Obama signed this law last month.

But sanctions laws are pointless if they are not enforced. The 1996 Iran Sanctions Act has never been enforced. We have evidence that as many as 25 companies could be violating this law. Those companies should suffer the penalties prescribed for enabling Iran’s nuclear aspirations and support for terrorists.

Working with Democrats and Republicans, Congressman Ron Klein (D-FL) and I voiced our concerns repeatedly to the Administration. We authored legislation requiring the President to identify companies violating the sanctions regime.

Again, in principle, there’s nothing wrong with talking to our adversaries. We have global interests that oblige us to communicate with governments we find repugnant. But talking to our adversaries should never come at the price of abandoning our beliefs in the rights and dignity of all people, wherever they are threatened.

Ronald Reagan talked and negotiated with Soviet leaders, but he never shrank from raising human rights abuses, and the plight of dissidents and captive nations in the Soviet empire. His support and the West’s long history of support for human rights movements were critical to winning the Cold War, and to the collapse of the Soviet Empire. They sustained the hopes, the commitment and the ability of freedom’s apostles behind the Iron Curtain throughout the long, twilight struggle. There were timid voices of the super realists that urged us not to be the voice for those in the gulags. Some State Department officials went to the wire to get President Reagan to remove the line “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” from the famous speech. But with the clear eye of 20 years perspective, can anyone seriously argue that victory didn’t advance America’s security and economic interests as well as our political values?

In any negotiation with Iran’s current masters, we should raise human rights abuses there, and especially those Iranians who have been jailed for the crime of advocating democratic principles. We should make unmistakably clear our intention to support, peacefully, Iran’s dissident Green Movement, the plight of Bahais and make certain our assistance to groups that support Iran’s dissidents is meaningful and sustained.

The President should speak often and publicly about courageous Iranians who are jailed, tortured, and often killed for dreaming and working for a free, just and peaceful Iran. He should speak their names, and make them heroes in homes throughout America and the world.

Talking to our adversaries should never take precedence over our security or that of our allies. We must not weaken our commitment to ballistic missile defense at a time when the world’s biggest supporter of terrorist movements is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them as far as the United States.

We must help Israel improve its high-altitude intercept capability by completing the Arrow-3 missile – and expand our cooperation to develop boost phase technologies like the Airborne Laser to bring down missile threats early in flight. As you know, I led efforts to share America’s real-time satellite data with Israel – and deploy our most advanced missile defense radar to the Negev Desert. I’ve supported other projects like David’s Sling and Iron Dome - and will continue to work to integrate Israel into America’s ballistic missile defenses.

Let’s be clear-eyed about the nature and intentions of Israel’s adversaries. The tragic history of the Jewish people in the 20th Century is one in which all Western nations were in varying degrees complicit. With a dictator pledging to “wipe Israel off the map,” we must ensure that never again means never again. The U.S.-Israel alliance is an extraordinary relationship based on our shared democratic values. Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East and a bastion of freedom and justice in a volatile region…and our vital interest in a stable Middle East is threatened by Israel’s adversaries as well.

Hamas must give up its armed struggle and accept Israel’s right to exist, not just rhetorically, but with all that means for developing the trust and respect necessary for Palestinians and Israelis to coexist peacefully.

Peace in the Middle East is founded on U.S. and Israeli strength, not weaknesses. When we have been united strong, we built peace with Egypt and Jordan. Making Israel weak or distant from us isn’t realism – it is dangerous delusion that sets the stage for conflict.

Nor should Europe, which is increasingly drifting away from its historical support for the Jewish state, and toward support for those who would destroy it. I worry Europe isn’t just losing the courage of its convictions, but is losing its convictions themselves.

There is a real concern Iran will order its Lebanese Hezbollah subsidiary to launch another war to distract us from Iran’s refusal to end its nuclear weapons program. Syria, another target of the Administration’s focus on engagement, persists in its domination over the Lebanese people.

Lebanon, a nation that could be a strong democratic bastion in the Middle East, is forced to give power to Hezbollah. Lebanese leaders, whose fathers were murdered by Syria, are compelled to go to Damascus to make their peace with the Assad regime.

We learn time and again that governments that share our values are likely to become our allies while those who abhor our values are likely to become threats.

It’s no coincidence the Russian government has become more aggressive abroad as it has become more authoritarian at home. This doesn’t mean we should refuse to engage with Russia or as Administration officials often put it, “hit the reset button.” Russia is an influential player with a nuclear arsenal. It is in our interest improve the odds of Russia becoming a responsible and enlightened force for stability.

But Russia is a shadow of its former shadow. From the 290 million people of the USSR, there are now only 140 million in Russia. Relations with Russia should not come at the expense of relations with the 150 million people who are now free from the USSR’s grip.

We compromised our own security when, to placate Russia, we gave up our planned ballistic missile defense base in Poland — a base that could be needed to defend against a ballistic missile attack from Iran — and broke a commitment to Polish and Czech leaders who took great political risks to cooperate with us. And if we learned anything, it is that history is not kind to Western leaders who sacrifice Poland.

An administration official declared Georgia was “no longer an obstacle” to an arms control agreement with Russia. As the Georgians fight along side us in Afghanistan, we sent the signal that Russian troops can remain in Georgia, hardening artificial borders. That should be an obstacle to significantly improved relations, and we shouldn’t be afraid to let Moscow know we consider it one.
Now, we haven’t the time today to discuss other opportunities that require our attention in this new era. Next week, I’ll speak about Asia, where much of America’s economic future is at stake. I intend to talk more about the issues I’ve mentioned today and others throughout this campaign. And I hope we will discuss many of them in the debates as well.

Today, we begin a dialogue about our future security, the progress of our values and improving the chance for our children to grow up in a more peaceful century. We cannot advance those values as Republicans or Democrats alone. Foreign threats don’t target Democrats or Republicans. They target Americans.

We should be inspired by the unity of Americans in uniform who know that overseas, we have always been in it together. Jefferson and Adams founded two political parties but joined together to ensure our greatest victory, American independence.

We’ll continue to debate about means. We always have. But not about ends. We and the world are far better off when freedom advances. And we should never argue about how to serve that historic and honorable cause for the sake of our political ambitions.

Some things are too important for partisanship.

Thank you.