Remarks to the International Press Institute

I know that you take your responsibility very seriously -- to stand for freedom of expression, and the free flow of ideas, even in places where those freedoms are far from self-evident.

In this fundamental sense, you demonstrate, each and every day, a principle that I believe is essential to American foreign policy in this new global age.

America's power comes not just only from our weapons and munitions -- but also from the American ideal itself.

For as long as the Old South Meeting House has stood, America has stood as proof of the principle that self-governance unlocks the highest fraction of human potential -- that liberty and democracy allow our people to share in an ever-widening circle of freedom, human dignity, and self-sufficiency.

This is a time of great opportunity for our country. Our economy is the envy of the world. Living standards are rising -- and the gap between the rich and the poor is closing for the first time in 20 years. America is a powerful engine for the global economy, because we have met our responsibility to balance our budget, to begin paying down our debt, and to embrace our role in supporting free markets and economic growth among all nations.

Just as we have an extraordinary prosperity, we also stand at an extraordinary time in our history. We are the only superpower. We are the strongest force for peace and prosperity that the world has ever known.

Twenty-five years ago today, the last helicopters lifted off from the roof of our embassy in Saigon. Although that brought an end to the war in Vietnam - a conflict I witnessed with my own eyes -- it did not bring an end to its influence on our thinking about foreign policy.

Even now, a decade after the end of the Cold War, we hear echoes of the old arguments. Some seem to believe that with the fall of the old Soviet empire, we have nothing more to fear in the world and should dramatically cut our defense budget. Others keep insisting that we continue to prepare to face down a Cold War threat that no longer exists, and persistently ignore the world as it is. I believe that both groups are locked in a self-destructive argument over a false choice.

For all of my career, I have believed that America has a responsibility to lead in the world. That's why I was one of only a few Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in support of the use of force to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And even as I was working hard in the Congress to help develop new approaches to arms control, I often disagreed with the predominant view in my own party as I pushed for a strong national defense and a new generation of less destabilizing missiles.

We are now in a new era. To label this time 'the post-Cold War era' belies its uniqueness and its significance. We are now in a Global Age. Like it or not, we live in an age when our destinies and the destinies of billions of people around the globe are increasingly intertwined. When our grand domestic and international challenges are also intertwined. We should neither bemoan nor naively idealize this new reality. We should deal with it.

We must now view what could be called the classic security agenda - the question of war and peace among sovereign states - in light of these new realities. But we must also recognize that there is a New Security Agenda, which I discussed at the United Nations Security Council in January - a set of threats that affect us all and that transcend political borders; a set of challenges equal in magnitude to the challenges of the past.

Today, at the dawn of the 21st Century, we need a foreign policy that addresses the classic security threats -- and understands the new ones as well. We need a new approach for a new century -- grounded in our own economic and security interests, but uplifted by what is right in the world. We need to pursue a policy of 'forward engagement' - addressing problems early in their development before they become crises; addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible; and having the forces and resources to deal with those threats as soon after their emergence as possible.

We need a new security agenda for the Global Age based on forward engagement.

In that context, I want to make three essential points to you today. First, although the nature of the challenges we face are new, the bedrock of our foreign policy is not. America must always maintain a strong defense, and unrivalled national security -- to protect our own interests, and to advance the ideals that are leading the world toward freedom.

Second, from our position of unrivaled affluence and influence, we have a responsibility to lead the world in meeting the new security challenges. We must make forward-looking investments at home and abroad to conquer the new threats that are jointly menacing to us all -- and to rise to the possibilities of the moment to reshape the world.

Third, we must resist those who would meet new global challenges with a newfound fear of the world itself. Isolationism and protectionism were dangerously wrong in the Industrial Age -- and they are still wrong and even more dangerous in this new Global Age.

Let me consider each of these points in turn.

First, America must have a strong defense. We must never forget that our national defense is about much more than the land within our borders. Just as we fought and conquered totalitarianism during World War Two -- just as we fought and conquered communism during the Cold War -- we are defending the idea of freedom itself. All of our policies, in war and in peace, are extensions by other means of Lincoln's proposition that our founders' dream is humankind's last best hope.

That is why America must have a military capability that is second to none. It is central to the continuing demands of the classic agenda -- to resist aggression, and to stop armed conflict. It is crucial to our security in this era of rogue states and international terror. And it is absolutely essential if we hope to wage peace through diplomacy. In our dealings with Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, we have learned the importance of diplomacy backed with force. I look forward to the day when Serbia and Iraq will be free from the grip of Milosevic and Saddam and the terrors they have wrought on their own people.

We prevailed in those conflicts with minimal American casualties because we have maintained a superbly well-trained fighting force - and because the American people have supported investments in weapons that give us a technological edge.

Today, we need to ensure that our military personnel have adequate pay and benefits and continue to receive the training and leadership which makes them the finest in the world. And we are on the threshold of manufacturing and deploying the next generation of military weapons: weapons that are vitally needed to replace equipment that has been in service for far too long. Weapons that are critical to meeting changing needs on today's battlefields.

If I am entrusted with the Presidency, I will lead the effort to ensure that America has the new generation of weapons we need.

But we need not only a new generation of weapons. We need a new generation of thinking.

That means strengthening and renewing our key alliances. We must remain open to further enlargement of NATO, we must bolster our trans-Atlantic ties, and we must build a strong, stable relationship with the European Union. We must encourage Japan - one of our most important economic partners, to join us in meeting the global responsibility to assure growth, greater trade, and higher living standards. We must invigorate our ties with all the Americas -- to combat the flow of drugs, to increase the flow of trade and the pace of economic development and continued political reform and modernization.

In the Global Age, we must be prepared to engage in regional conflicts selectively -- where the stability of a region important to our national security is at stake; where we can assure ourselves that nothing short of military engagement can secure our national interest; where we are certain that the use of military force can succeed in doing so; where we have allies willing to help share the burden, and where the cost is proportionate. America can not be the world's policeman. But we must reject the new isolationism that says: don't help anywhere, because we can not help everywhere.

That means supporting the difficult work of democratic reform and economic growth, to help Haiti and other states in the Caribbean build a more hopeful future.

It means pressing for a lasting peace in Ireland -- not merely the laying down of arms, but the joining of hands in a new political relationship that enables former rivals to govern and thrive together.

In the Balkans, we have to keep working with our European allies, to protect a fragile peace and secure the economic future of the entire region.

On the Korean peninsula, we must continue to work with our South Korean allies to maintain the peace. And that means not only exercising creative diplomacy toward the North, but standing ready to honor our commitments to the defense of South Korea.

In South Asia, we have to work with India and Pakistan to dampen down a nuclear arms race on the sub-continent and to continue to urge them to deal with their differences over their conflict in Kashmir with peaceful means.

In the Middle East, I am deeply committed to doing all I can to facilitate their efforts to forge a fair and acceptable peace with security. And this I have believed for all my years in public life: Israel is America's strongest ally in a region of strife and conflict. If I'm entrusted with the Presidency, I will ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship remains strong and unshakeable.

We need to intensify cooperation with civilized governments all over the world to combat the common threat of terrorism.

But perhaps the biggest change in our approach to the classic agenda is how we engage two countries that once were only known to us as enemies: Russia and China.

During the Cold War, we worked to contain these two powers and limit their reach. Our task in the 21st Century is not making them weak -- but instead to encourage forces of reform.

That is why we have worked hard these past seven years to help Russia make a transition to a market-based democracy. We have helped Russia privatize its economy and build a civil society marked by free elections and an active press. We have brought Russia into a working relationship with NATO through the Permanent Joint Council and the Partnership for Peace program. We have been able to work with Russian forces successfully inside a NATO framework in the Balkans.

We have helped safeguard Russian nuclear material against the danger of theft. We have made it possible for thousands of Russia's nuclear scientists and weapons experts to find peaceful pursuits. And we have helped Russia to reduce its nuclear arsenal by nearly 5,000 warheads.

This work has not been without difficulty, or controversy. We strongly disagree with Russia's course in Chechnya. Russia must intensify its own work to stop the flow of dangerous technologies that irresponsible groups and rogue states can use to create weapons of mass destruction. Russia must still take decisive steps to combat corruption and achieve reform. But a new Cold War is not the right path to progress. Engaging Russia is the right thing to do. That's why I took on the task of leading our effort to work with Russia - not because it was politically popular, but because it was right for America's security, and right for the spread of democracy around the world.