[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 103 (Monday, July 31, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8446-S8448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          AMERICAN LEADERSHIP

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record my remarks given at the Brookings Institution on July 28, 
2006.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          A Defining Time for 21st Century American Leadership


   u.s. senator chuck hagel, remarks as prepared for delivery at the 
                  brookings institution july 28, 2006

       I am honored to be invited to speak here today as a part of 
     the Brookings Institution's 90th Anniversary Leadership 
     Forum. Brookings has been at the center of every important 
     policy debate in this country for 90 years. Thank you to 
     Strobe Talbot, Carlos Pascual, and all the men and women of 
     Brookings for your continued contributions to our national 
     debate. I see Martin Indyk and Ken Pollack in the audience. 
     Thank you for the fine work you do with the Saban Center for 
     Middle East Policy.
       As we recognize the 90th Anniversary of the Brookings 
     Institution, it is instructive to reflect back on the world 
     of 1916 when Brookings was born . . . then known as the 
     Institute for Government Research. In 1916, the world was in 
     a period of wrenching and bloody transition. War raged in 
     Europe. It was a war triggered by a series of tragic 
     misjudgements stemming from decades-old resentments and 
     shifting European alliances. It was a war fueled by the 
     Industrial Revolution . . . the most deadly war the world had 
     ever known. Within one year, the United States would shake-
     off its historic isolationism and engage in its first global 
     conflict.
       The Treaty of Versailles brought an end to the fighting, 
     but it did not bring resolution. The United States retreated 
     from a position of world leadership and back into its shell 
     of irresponsible isolationism . . . the world economy 
     collapsed, and lingering global resentments continued to 
     heighten. Roughly twenty years later, harsh post-war 
     reparations and arrogant nationalism gave rise to an even 
     deadlier period of global transition: World War II.
       America's leaders following World War II learned from the 
     failed and dangerous polices of the first half of the 20th 
     century. After World War II, the United States became the 
     indispensable global leader. Along with our allies, we 
     created organizations of global interests and common purpose 
     like the United Nations, the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
     Trade (now the World Trade Organization), NATO, the World 
     Bank, the International Monetary Fund and dozens of other 
     multilateral institutions. Leaders like Truman, Marshall, 
     Acheson, Hull, Vandenberg and Eisenhower led in the 
     rebuilding of Europe and Japan.
       Ninety years after the creation of the Brookings 
     Institution, we live in a different world . . . but once 
     again a world in transition. The lessons learned after World 
     War II still apply. American leadership is still 
     indispensable in the world . . . and the institutions and 
     alliances formed after World War II are as vital today as 
     when they were formed.
       For decades, the United States used its power and influence 
     to help forge international consensus on vital issues. 
     America's leadership inspired the trust and confidence of a 
     generation of governments and nations around the world . . . 
     because we pursued common actions that reflected common 
     interests with our allies . . . because we remained committed 
     to global engagement . . . and because we exercised our power 
     with restraint. We made mistakes. It was imperfect. There 
     were differences with our allies. But despite the 
     imperfections and shortcomings, the United States and its 
     allies contributed to world stability and the spread of 
     freedom and prosperity.
       Today, the world and America are in deep trouble. In a 
     speech before the Council on Foreign Relations last November, 
     I warned that the world's trust and confidence in America's 
     purpose has seriously eroded. America is increasingly not 
     seen as the well-spring of consensus that for decades helped 
     create alliances and coalitions grounded in common objectives 
     and common interests.
       This is in contrast to a very troubling trend toward 
     isolationism that is emerging in America today--a trend that 
     was reflected in this week's New York Times/CBS News poll of 
     Americans about our country's role in the world. This trend 
     is a looming concern that may not be obvious but is manifest 
     across seemingly unconnected events and issues. We must avoid 
     the trap of limiting our power by allowing ourselves to 
     become isolated in the world. America must not allow itself 
     to become isolated through mindless isolationist remedies to 
     difficult and complicated problems.
       In the 1930s, the threat of Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany 
     was not taken seriously. Most did not recognize this threat 
     until World War II was upon them. But there was a voice 
     sounding an alarm. Throughout the 1930s, Winston Churchill 
     urged his countrymen and Europe to see the world through the 
     clear lens of reality--not through the blurred lens of 
     misplaced hope. On October 3, 1938, the House of Commons 
     debated the Munich Agreement that Prime Minister Chamberlain 
     had negotiated with Hitler. Many saw this agreement as the 
     assurance of peace with Germany. Churchill disagreed. He 
     said:
       ``Can we blind ourselves to the great change which has 
     taken place in the military situation, and to the dangers we 
     have to meet? This is only the beginning of the reckoning. 
     This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter 
     cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a 
     supreme

[[Page S8447]]

     recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again 
     and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.''
       Today, there is no such threat to world order. Global 
     threats today are less defined than Hitler. However, the 
     challenges are more insidious, more difficult to comprehend 
     and identify, yet more interrelated, more dynamic, and more 
     dangerous. In the 21st century, we are confronted by a 
     universe of challenges, threats, and opportunities unlike any 
     that we have ever known. The margins of error for 
     miscalculation are less than ever before. Dramatic shifts in 
     security, stability and prosperity can occur in weeks or even 
     days.
       On April 16, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered 
     a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors 
     that we now know as the ``Chance for Peace'' speech. In the 
     aftermath of the death and destruction of World War II and 
     the ongoing war in Korea, the world then was confronted with 
     the threat of the Soviet Union and communism. A different 
     time. A different generation. Yet, Eisenhower's words and 
     wisdom still ring true today. He said,
       ``No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly 
     achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with 
     fellow-nations.''
       Just as Eisenhower said in 1953, America's security, 
     prosperity and freedom cannot be separated from the dangers, 
     challenges, and opportunities abroad. There are no national 
     boundaries from terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction, pandemic disease, environmental degradation, and 
     despair. No nation, unilaterally, possesses the power to 
     defeat the threats of the 21st century. A global society 
     underpinned by a global economy is our world today. The 
     world's problems and dangers are interconnected. Nowhere are 
     these realities clearer than in the Middle East.
       The Middle East is a region in crisis. A continuous and 
     escalating volley of violence has the potential for wider 
     regional and global conflict. Centuries-old religious, ethnic 
     and tribal hatreds and tensions are being manipulated by 
     Islamic extremists for their own unholy purpose. The Middle 
     East is today as combustible and complex as it has ever been. 
     More than fifty percent of the world's proven oil and natural 
     gas reserves reside in this troubled land . . . at a time 
     when the world's six and a half billion people rely on these 
     resources in an interconnected world economy. Uncertain 
     popular support for regime legitimacy continues to weaken 
     governments of the Middle East. Economic stagnation, 
     persistent unemployment, deepening despair and wider unrest 
     enhance the ability of terrorists to recruit and succeed. An 
     Iran with nuclear weapons raises the specter of broader 
     proliferation and a fundamental strategic realignment in the 
     region, creating more regional instability.
       America's approach to the Middle East must be consistent 
     and sustained, and must understand the history, interests and 
     perspectives of our regional friends and allies.
       The United States will remain committed to defending 
     Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and 
     historic one. But, it need not and cannot be at the expense 
     of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an 
     irresponsible and dangerous false choice. Achieving a lasting 
     resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is as much in 
     Israel's interest as any other country in the world.
       Unending war will continually drain Israel of its human 
     capital, resources, and energy as it fights for its survival. 
     The United States and Israel must understand that it is not 
     in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become 
     isolated in the Middle East and the world. Neither can allow 
     themselves to drift into an ``us against the world'' global 
     optic or zero-sum game. That would marginalize America's 
     global leadership, trust and influence, further isolate 
     Israel, and prove to be disastrous for both countries as well 
     as the region.
       It is in Israel's interest, as much as ours, that the 
     United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as 
     fair. This is the currency of trust.
       Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories have 
     experienced devastating violence in the last couple of weeks. 
     The world has rightly condemned the despicable actions of 
     Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel and 
     kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Israel has the undeniable right 
     to defend itself against aggression. This is the right of all 
     states.
       Hezbollah is a threat to Israel, to Lebanon and to all who 
     strive for lasting peace in the Middle East. This threat must 
     be dealt with, as Israel's military operations continue to 
     weaken Hezbollah's capacity for violence.
       However, military action alone will not destroy Hezbollah 
     or Hamas. Extended military action will tear apart Lebanon, 
     destroy its economy and infrastructure, create a humanitarian 
     disaster, further weaken Lebanon's fragile democratic 
     government, strengthen popular Muslim and Arab support for 
     Hezbollah, and deepen hatred of Israel across the Middle 
     East. The pursuit of tactical military victories at the 
     expense of the core strategic objective of Arab-Israeli peace 
     is a hollow victory. The war against Hezbollah and Hamas will 
     not be won on the battlefield.
       To achieve a strategic shift in the conditions for Middle 
     East peace, the United States must use the global 
     condemnation of terrorist acts as the basis for substantive 
     change. For a lasting and popularly supported resolution, 
     only a strong Lebanese government and army, backed by the 
     international community, can rid Lebanon of these corrosive 
     militias and terrorist organizations.
       President Bush and Secretary Rice must become and remain 
     deeply engaged in the Middle East. Only U.S. leadership can 
     build a consensus of purpose among our regional and 
     international partners.
       The Rome meeting of the Lebanon core group this week must 
     be the beginning of a very intensive diplomatic process--at 
     the highest levels--with the objective of ending the military 
     conflict, securing the Israel-Lebanon border, and 
     invigorating the political track. To lead and sustain U.S. 
     engagement, the President should appoint a statesman of 
     global stature, experience and ability to serve as his 
     personal envoy to the region who would report directly to him 
     and be empowered with the authority to speak and act for the 
     President. Former Secretaries of State Baker and Powell fit 
     this profile.
       America must listen carefully to its friends and partners 
     in the region. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others--
     countries that understand the Middle East far better than 
     we do--must commit to help resolve today's crisis and be 
     active partners in helping build a mechanism to move 
     toward realizing the already agreed-upon two-state 
     solution.
       A robust international force deployed along the Israel-
     Lebanon border will be required to facilitate a steady 
     deployment of a strengthened Lebanese Army into southern 
     Lebanon to eventually assume responsibility for security and 
     the rule of law. The UN Security Council should negotiate a 
     new binding resolution that strengthens its demands to disarm 
     militias and to remove Syrian influence from Lebanon that 
     were made in UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and commits 
     the international community to help Lebanon re-build its 
     country.
       The core of all challenges in the Middle East remains the 
     underlying Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to address this 
     root cause will allow Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorists 
     to continue to sustain popular Muslim and Arab support, 
     continuing to undermine America's standing in the region, and 
     the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others--
     whose support is critical for any Middle East resolution.
       The United States should engage our Middle East and 
     international partners to revive the Beirut Declaration, or 
     some version of it, proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 
     and adopted unanimously by the Arab League in March 2002. In 
     this historic initiative, the Arab world recognized Israel's 
     right to exist and sought to establish a path toward a two-
     state solution and broader Arab-Israeli peace. Even though 
     Israel could not accept it as written, it represented a very 
     significant ``starting point'' document initiated by Arab 
     countries. Today, we need a new Beirut Declaration-type 
     initiative. We squandered the last one.
       The concept and intent of the 2002 Beirut Declaration is as 
     relevant today as it was in 2002. An Arab-initiated Beirut-
     type declaration would re-invest regional Arab states with a 
     stake in achieving progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. 
     This type of initiative would offer a positive alternative 
     vision for Arab populations to the ideology and goals of 
     Islamic militants. The United States must explore this 
     approach as part of its diplomatic engagement in the Middle 
     East.
       Lasting peace in the Middle East, and stability and 
     security for Israel will come only from a regionally-oriented 
     political settlement.
       Former American Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross once observed 
     that in the Middle East a process is necessary because 
     process absorbs events . . . without a process, events become 
     crises. He was right. Look at where we are today in the 
     Middle East with no process. Crisis diplomacy is no 
     substitute for sustained, day-to-day engagement.
       America's approach to Syria and Iran is inextricably tied 
     to Middle East peace. Whether or not they were directly 
     involved in the latest Hezbollah and Hamas aggression in 
     Israel, both countries exert influence in the region in ways 
     that undermine stability and security. As we work with our 
     friends and allies to deny Syria and Iran any opportunity to 
     further corrode the situation in Lebanon and the Palestinian 
     territories, both Damascus and Tehran must hear from America 
     directly.
       As John McLaughlin, the former Deputy Director of Central 
     Intelligence recently wrote in the Washington Post,
       ``Even superpowers have to talk to bad guys. The absence of 
     a diplomatic relationship with Iran and the deterioration of 
     the one with Syria--two countries that bear enormous 
     responsibility for the current crisis--leave the United 
     States with fewer options and levers than might otherwise 
     have been the case. Distasteful as it might have been to have 
     or to maintain open and normal relations with such states, 
     the absence of such relations ensures that we will have more 
     blind spots than we can afford and that we will have to deal 
     through surrogates on issues of vital importance to the 
     United States. We will have to get over the notion that 
     talking to bad guys somehow rewards them or is a sign of 
     weakness. As a superpower, we ought to be able to communicate 
     in a way that signals our strength and self-confidence.''
       Ultimately, the United States will need to engage Iran and 
     Syria with an agenda open to all areas of agreement and 
     disagreement. For this dialogue to have any meaning or 
     possible lasting relevance, it should encompass the full 
     agenda of issues.

[[Page S8448]]

       There is very little good news coming out of Iraq today. 
     Increasingly vicious sectarian violence continues to propel 
     Iraq toward civil war. The U.S. announcement this week to 
     send additional U.S. troops and military police back into 
     Baghdad reverses last month's decision to have Iraqi 
     forces take the lead in Baghdad . . . and represents a 
     dramatic set back for the U.S and the Iraqi Government. 
     The Iraqi Government has limited ability to enforce the 
     rule of law in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. Green Zone 
     politics appear to have little bearing or relation to the 
     realities of the rest of Iraq.
       The Iraqis will continue to face difficult choices over the 
     future of their country. The day-to-day responsibilities of 
     governing and security will soon have to be assumed by 
     Iraqis. As I said in November, this is not about setting a 
     timeline. This is about understanding the implications of the 
     forces of reality. This reality is being determined by 
     Iraqis--not Americans. America is bogged down in Iraq and 
     this is limiting our diplomatic and military options. The 
     longer America remains in Iraq in its current capacity, the 
     deeper the damage to our force structure--particularly the 
     U.S. Army. And it will continue to place more limitations on 
     an already dangerously over-extended force structure that 
     will further limit our options and public support.
       The Cold War, while dangerous, created a fairly stable and 
     mostly predictable world order. That is no longer the case 
     today. The challenges of the 21st century will be more 
     complex and represent a world of greater degrees of nuance, 
     uncertainty and uncontrollables than those of the last 60 
     years. America's policy choices will be more complicated than 
     ever before.
       We must be clear in our principles and interests, with 
     friends and foes alike. But framing the world in 
     ``absolutes'' constrains our ability to build coalitions and 
     alliances, alienates our friends and partners, and results in 
     our own isolation. No country will view its interests as 
     coinciding exactly with ours; nor will countries simply 
     subsume their national interests to maintain relations with 
     America. U.S. policies that are premised on such assumptions 
     will be flawed, with little likelihood for success, and 
     ultimately work against our national interests.
       In pursuing our objectives, America must always be mindful 
     of the risks of sudden change and the dangers of unintended 
     consequences. Rarely will America succeed if its actions seek 
     to impose its objectives on others, or achieve change and 
     reform through power alone. America is always strongest when 
     it acts in concert with friends and allies. This approach has 
     enhanced our power and magnified our influence. The Middle 
     East and other regions of the world have been left behind and 
     not experienced the political and economic reform that many 
     other regions have enjoyed in the last 60 years.
       The Middle East crisis represents a moment of great danger, 
     but it is also an opportunity. Crisis focuses the minds of 
     leaders and the attention of nations. The Middle East need 
     not be a region forever captive to the fire of war and 
     historical hatred. It will and can avoid this fate if the 
     United States pursues sustained and engaged leadership worthy 
     of our history, purpose, and power. America cannot fix every 
     problem in the world--nor should it try. But we must get the 
     big issues and important relationships right and concentrate 
     on those. We know that without engaged and active American 
     leadership the world is more dangerous.
       When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered his 
     State of the Union Address on January 6, 1945, he counseled 
     the United States and the world to look beyond the immediate 
     horror of war to the challenges and opportunities that lay 
     ahead. Roosevelt understood the requirements of U.S. 
     leadership and the essence of alliances and partnerships. He 
     said:
       ``We must not let those differences divide us and blind us 
     to our more important common and continuing interests in 
     winning the war and building the peace. International 
     cooperation on which enduring peace must be based is not a 
     one-way street. Nations like individuals do not always see 
     alike or think alike, and international cooperation and 
     progress are not helped by any nation assuming that it has a 
     monopoly of wisdom or of virtue.''
       Over the last 60 years since Roosevelt's remarks, the 
     United States has been a force for peace and prosperity in 
     the world. Decades of investment in geopolitical security, 
     economic stability, political freedom, innovation and 
     productivity have resulted in a 21st century of both 
     cooperation and competition. This is a defining time for 21 
     st Century American leadership. With enlightened American 
     leadership this century offers the world the prospects of 
     unprecedented global peace, prosperity and security . . . 
     ifwe are wise enough to sense the moment, engage the world 
     and share a nobility of purpose with all mankind.

                          ____________________