up to the challenge

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC

Up to the ChallengeAuthor(s): John EdwardsSource: Foreign Policy, No. 135 (Mar. - Apr., 2003), pp. 52-54Published by: Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLCStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3183590 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 05:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Foreign Policy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.48 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:49:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wpni

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3183590?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


If I Were President .

UP TO THE CHALLENGE

By John Edwards

ince the first responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens from harm, Washington must now do as much as pos-

sible to meet two overriding priorities: securing the American people at home and addressing both the immediate and long-term threats to our security abroad. Yet I worry that the Bush administration is failing to achieve both, neither doing what it takes to make the United States safe nor working hard enough to develop a comprehensive strategy for enhancing global security.

Let's begin with homeland security, which is a vital part of any national security strategy. Thank- fully, we have made real progress on airport security systems and have started a massive government reorganization to create the Department of Homeland Security. But we still don't have the means to infiltrate terrorist organizations oper- ating within the United States or adequate ways to stop terrorists or their weapons from getting through the holes in U.S. borders or ports. We still have not given police the proper training and equipment to protect bridges and tunnels. We still have not done enough to help the police officers, firefighters, and emer- gency medical technicians on the front lines to help coordinate a response in the event of an attack. We still have not done nearly enough to encourage and help all Americans to play a part in making the country safer.

In short, today there is still no comprehensive strategy for domestic security. Up to now, the Bush administration has focused on racking up political achievements for itself rather than sub- stantive achievements for U.S. security. And against all reason, the administration stubbornly clings to permanent tax cuts that will benefit mainly the top 1 percent of Americans while arguing that the government can't afford vital measures to protect the American people.

A comprehensive approach to domestic secu-

rity must include initiatives to find and track terrorists through better intelligence, to improve border security and target protection, and to do as much as possible to enhance domestic readi- ness. I have outlined proposals in each of these areas, and I believe acting on them must be an urgent priority.

Yet making the United States safe at home is only the first step-we also have to do much better to make the United States safe in the world. This effort means we have to meet at least three key challenges: eliminating the threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; winning the war on terrorism; and promoting democracy and freedom around the world, especially in the Middle East.

To eliminate the threat from weapons of mass destruction, we must ensure countries such as Iraq and North Korea abide by their international obligations. That is why I supported authorizing the use of force to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hus-

sein and why I was so dismayed by the administration's muddled response to the recent North Korea crisis. But the threat from weapons of mass destruction is much bigger than Iraq and North Korea. To prevent future threats from arising, the United States must treat non-proliferation as a strategic imperative. Unfortunately, so far, the administration has spent far more diplomatic energy to weaken the international consensus against proliferation than to strengthen it.

The world needs more U.S. leadership on these issues, not less. Just as the United States must lead a global coalition against countries like Iraq, it must forge a global coalition against the larger threat from weapons of mass destruction. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must also devote the maximum resources necessary to support cooperative threat-reduction programs, including the Nunn-Lugar Act of 1991.

"[A] leader who has to go it alone is no longer

leading anybody."

John Edwards is a U.S. senator from North Carolina.

52 FOREIGN POLICY



0

3:

American resolve in these efforts must also be matched in the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and combating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. The United States' national security requires both.

The war on terrorism, as the fight against weapons proliferation, will never be won through unilateral American action. Though powerful, the United States cannot be everywhere and learn everything without cooperation from our friends and allies. Al Qaeda alone is known to operate in more than 60 countries, and we therefore need the cooperation of intelligence and law enforcement agencies around the world.

The United States must also be there to fight terrorism for the long haul-waging war when necessary but also doing what it takes to win the peace. From the Balkans to Afghanistan, the Bush administration has displayed a visceral rejection of leadership in post-conflict situations. Again, we should not-and cannot-go it alone. But we must make such leadership a higher priority. We've proved that we have firepower. Now we must show the world that we have staying power.

A vital part of staying power is the U.S. effort to promote global democracy and freedom. Ulti- mately, there is no greater force for peace and prosperity and against terrorism than the promo- tion of democratic regimes that respect human rights and the rule of law both within and beyond their borders. That's why the United States must lead a far-reaching new effort to build the infra- structure of just and lawful societies: a free press and civil society, open and fair elections, and the legal, political, and regulatory institutions to make government accountable.

This effort will require steady diplomatic pres- sure and increased funding. I support the administration's ongoing effort to link assistance to just and responsible governance. But the United States must also rally Europe, Japan, and multilateral aid

agencies to put democracy and good governance at the center of their strategies and standards.

This emphasis is especially important for the Middle East. No area of the world is now more critical to U.S. interests, yet no area of the world is less democratic. Getting serious about political reform and human rights in the Middle East will require specific strategies in specific coun-

tries, but it will also depend on achieving energy secu-

John Edwards Amp

Sen. John Edwards (North Carolina): Edwards was a trial lawyer prior to serving in public office. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998, defeating incumbent Republican Sen. Lauch Faircloth.

Edwards sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; the Committee on the Judiciary; the Com- mittee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

In March 1999, Edwards voted in favor of a resolution authorizing "military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with NATO against Yugoslavia." Two months later, he joined 77 other senators (46 Republicans and 31 Democrats) in opposing a resolution authorizing then President Bill Clinton to "use all necessary force and other means" to achieve victory in Kosovo, including the possible use of ground troops. Edwards supported ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and voted in favor of legislation calling upon the United States to deploy national missile defense as soon as such a system is technologically fea- sible. He has criticized the White House for blocking efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and notes that: "In its 31-page National Security Strategy, there is only one paragraph that says anything about strength- ening preventive measures like non-proliferation." In 2000, Edwards voted in favor of permanent normal trade relations with China. In that same year, he was one of 19 senators to vote against the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which specified that expanded trade with African, Caribbean, and Central American countries would be contingent upon those nations' meeting specific eligibility requirements, such as eliminating child labor. In the months following the Sep- tember 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he introduced four pieces of legislation intended to strengthen homeland security: the Biological and Chemical Weapons Pre- paredness Act, the Airport and Seaport Terrorism Pre- vention Act, the Cyberterrorism Preparedness Act, and the Cybersecurity Research and Education Act. In 2002, Edwards was one of the cosponsors of the bipartisan resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force to ensure Iraq complies with U.N. resolutions on disarmament.

Senator John Edwards's Web sites are

edwards.senate.gov and www.johnedwards2004.com.

MARCH IAPRIL 2003 53



If I Were President .

rity. Presidents of both parties have tolerated and even supported authoritarian regimes in the Middle East in part because the United States depends on them for oil. A real commitment to energy inde- pendence-which the Bush administration clear- ly lacks-would not only strengthen the U.S. economy but free the United States to promote American values. The United States must also do far more to promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Finally, Americans must remember this fun- damental fact: Success in combating weapons of mass destruction, fighting terrorism, and promoting democracy is only possible through American leadership of the world-not American disregard for it. Too often, the current administration sends the message that others don't matter. It rightly demands that U.S. allies back efforts vital to U.S. interests but then shows disdain for cooperative endeavors and agreements important to theirs. Indeed, the admin-

istration often treats allies as an afterthought, gra- tuitously rubbing in its contempt for them and their views.

We will always have some differences with friends and allies. But what's important is how we resolve those differences-or agree not to. We should always stick to our principles, do our best to bring others to our way of thinking, and remain committed to resolving disputes in a respectful spirit. But picking up and walking away is not an exercise of leadership; it is an abdication of it. After all, a leader who has to go it alone is no longer leading anybody.

Right now, when it comes to U.S. security at home and abroad, Americans have the worst of both worlds: an administration that has not done enough to strengthen our domestic security but has done far too much to isolate us in the world. The American people deserve better on both counts.

A RENEWED COMMITMENT TO GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

By Richard A. Gephardt

Last June, I gave a foreign policy address to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Council on Foreign

Relations in which I offered to work with President George W Bush to build an effective policy toward Iraq. I felt then, as I do today, that to protect the United States' national interests, we must use diplomatic tools where we can and military means when we must to eliminate the threat Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses to the region and our own security.

In negotiations with the Bush administration on the congressional legislation authorizing the use of force, if necessary, to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, my proudest contribution was to insist on language calling on Bush to continue active diplomatic engagement to resolve this crisis before he resorts to military action. In every conversation

I had with the president, I emphasized the impor- tance of exhausting all diplomatic means and of working with other nations to maximize our poten- tial for success. These efforts compelled the president into a partnership with the United Nations that resulted in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441,

which warns of "serious consequences" if Iraq does not allow weapons inspectors to verify the destruction of its weapons of mass destruction.

In approaching this crisis and other foreign policy challenges, I drew from a long tradition of leadership that has

shaped U.S. foreign policy since World War II. At many points in the last half century, our nation has faced a choice between taking a global leadership role or reverting to the illusory security of isola- tion, as we did after World War I. To our great benefit, our leaders have repeatedly committed themselves to the first path through their keen understanding of America's long-term interests, their constant recognition that the United States

"Fewer nations choose to

follow our lead; more

nations resent our tilt

toward unilateralism."

Richard A. Gephardt is a U.S. representative from the third

congressional district of Missouri.

54 FOREIGN POLICY



up to the challenge

Documents