Today, America faces four great challenges: the war on terror, the situation in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and the crisis in North Korea. These four present challenges to our nation second-to-none, greater than any that we have faced in decades. 

With respect to the ongoing war on terror, which centers around Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, I can report to you today substantial progress.  The United States, with its allies and the Northern Alliance, succeeded in dispersing the Taliban government and putting Al Qaeda operatives on the run.  The government of Hamid Karzai, the first democratic government, is reasserting control over Afghanistan, although the going is difficult.  The security situation in Afghanistan is improving.  We have 7,500 of our soldiers on the ground and our allies have 5,000 of their soldiers on the ground.  They are providing security until the new government of Afghanistan is able to train its military and police.

As a final action in the last Congress, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created to better coordinate efforts to safeguard the American people from terrorist attacks, and today the Senate is voting to confirm its first director.  On the negative side, however, Osama bin Laden and many of his senior lieutenants are most probably still alive, along with hundreds, and possibly thousands of followers.  They remain extremely dangerous.  And while Mullah Omar and the Taliban have been removed from power, they lurk in the remote areas of Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan and wait for the first sign of weakness to return.  Bottom line: if we are to be successful on the war on terror, it is critical that Osma bin Laden, Mullah Omar and other senior Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives be brought to justice.  So we must stay the course in Afghanistan and wherever the war on terror takes us.  We must not allow ourselves to get distracted or take our eye off the ball.  We must ensure that the Afghan economy and infrastructure are rebuilt.  We must protect this fledgling democracy so it can survive and the Afghan people can flourish. 

Just last week, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, said from Kabul, that "security and stability" must be the goal.  Security and stability.  I agree.  Internationally, we must relentlessly pursue those who would use terror to destroy us.  That must be our mission and it must be sustained until the job is finished.

With regard to Iraq, let me begin by saying, categorically, that no information has been presented to the Senate, to date, to connect Iraq to 9/11 or to any Al Qaeda terrorist attack.  There may be 125 Al Qaeda who have drifted into the northern Iraqi area of Kurdistan, but there is no direct connection that we know of.  Nevertheless, on August 26, Vice President Cheney laid the ground work for a unilateral and preemptive strike against Iraq, stating that Iraq either is, or would imminently be, a nuclear power.  But he provided no evidence to back up this accusation either publicly to the American people or privately — on a classified basis — to the Senate.  As a matter of fact, in August I spent the day at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and they had no evidence either.  Then, in a welcome shift, the president went to the United Nations on September 12 and strongly urged the Security Council to compel Iraqi compliance with the 16 resolutions they have violated and/or defied over the past 11 years.  The president since that time has repeatedly stated that the United States would lead a "coalition of the willing" to compel Iraq's compliance. 

In September it appeared that the president had turned away from a unilateral course to a multilateral one.  That was good and welcome news.  On October 10 I voted for a Senate Resolution that would have required the president to return to the Security Council for a vote before launching a military strike against Iraq.  That resolution was defeated.  Subsequently, and based on the president's support for acting in concert with the U.N. Security Council, I joined 76 of my colleagues in the United States Senate and voted to support a resolution authorizing the president to use force to compel compliance with U.N. mandates if such would be necessary.

Since November 24 the United Nation's inspection teams have inspected Iraqi facilities that produce chemicals and pharmaceuticals:  palace compounds, health care centers, water plants and numerous other facilities where old records, prior inspections, or intelligence indicate chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or missiles might either be made or secreted.  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is also in the process of training and doubling the number of inspectors.

On December 7, Iraq gave the United Nations a 12,000-page account of its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs and on December 28, Iraq provided the United Nations with a list of Iraqis participating in its weapons programs. 

 Now, January 27, just a short week from today, is a key date, because on that date the findings of the IAEA inspectors will be detailed, and any discrepancies between what they have found thus far and Iraq's earlier declaration should be revealed.  Inspections to date have produced no evidence sufficient to clearly establish continuing culpability in the production of weapons of mass destruction.  However, and I must say this, Iraq is not yet cooperating fully with the United Nation's inspectors as the Security Council has demanded.  Saddam may well be up to his old tricks — moving weapons or other incriminating evidence from place to place — because his history is a sordid one.

 If there is clear evidence that Iraq is continuing an illegal program to produce weapons of mass destruction, or has submitted inaccurate or purposely false information regarding its nuclear and biological programs, or has secret programs, facilities, or stockpiles, then the Administration should make that public.  And, if there is hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction, then the Security Council of the United Nations must take immediate action to compel compliance, including using force, if necessary, and I would support such action.  It is critical that those multilateral governance agencies, such as the United Nations and in particular the Security Council, — it is important that their declarations, their mandates, not be disregarded, because if they can be then the rule of law fails.  But the massive increases of United States troops in the Persian Gulf appears to be an indication that, regardless of the findings of the United Nations inspectors, the president may well intend to use military force to bring about regime change in Iraq.  I find this deeply disturbing.  I strongly believe that the arms inspectors must be allowed to complete their task, to report back to the United Nations Security Council, and the Security Council must be the body to consider action. 

 In the meantime, if you think about it, Iraq is effectively contained and prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction.  It is not an imminent threat either to its neighbors or to the United States and there is no need for precipitous military action under these circumstances.  Think about it for a minute.  We have had tens of thousands of troops in South Korea for 40 years to prevent an attack on South Korea.  What would be the problem with keeping a thousand or two thousand arms inspectors in Iraq for the next decade if it would prevent a major war?  I deeply believe that a preemptive unilateral attack against a Muslim nation may well create a divide between the United States and the Muslim world so deep and so wide that it will bring with it negative consequences for decades.  There are efforts being made behind the scenes by Arab nations to achieve a peaceful regime change, in other words, to find a country that would grant asylum and to move Saddam Hussein and the top leadership to that country.  These efforts should be given the opportunity to succeed.  What's the rush to bring the tragedy of war — and there is always tragedy.  If Iraq can be successfully contained and disarmed and war can be avoided and the leadership can be moved out of the country, if the deaths of innocent people can be prevented, then that must be our course.  War must be a last resort.

 Let me make a few comments about one additional crisis before discussing North Korea.  A solution must be found to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis – and soon.  Unfortunately, it has not been, in my view, a high enough priority for the Administration.  As long as the Israeli-Palestinian crisis escalates, as it has with the consequential increase in hatreds, the risk of catastrophe remains unabated and becomes more probable as time goes on.  Yet, one of the few things that most Israelis and most Palestinians agree upon is that the United States is in a unique third-party position; capable of advancing the peace process.  Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is clearly in the United States' national interest and would produce broader benefits as well.  It would increase cooperation in the Islamic world in the war on terror, it would help us secure assistance from the Islamic world in pressuring Saddam Hussein to disarm and it would restore credibility and momentum worldwide for American diplomacy and American influence.

 Right after the January 28 Israeli election I believe president Bush should name a very senior and experienced person to be his personal emissary dealing with this crisis — to move the crisis towards a solution.  The Israeli-Palestinian problem demands much more creative and high-level attention by the United States.  It must be solved.  Time is running out.

 With respect to North Korea, I believe the situation is much more menacing than that of Iraq.  It presents a substantial and real danger to stability throughout the Asia Pacific region and could ultimately directly threaten the United States.  In fact, North Korea possesses a much more advanced nuclear program than Iraq, and it has been assessed that North Korea may already possess nuclear capability.  North Korea also has a missile delivery system, and once the third stage of the Taepo Dong missile is completed and operational, North Korea could strike any place in the United States.

 Also, North Korea has expelled all international inspectors and equipment.  It has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the first country to do so.  It has restarted its plutonium processing plants.  It has moved thousands of plutonium rods out of locked safe storage back into the nuclear production line and it is enriching uranium for nuclear weapons purposes.

 The country and the leadership are isolated.  The economy is a failure, and even the most basic necessities of life such as electricity, sanitation and food are lacking.  People have starved or are now starving by the tens of thousands. 

I had the opportunity in December to helicopter to the Demilitarized Zone where General LaPorte, our 4-star general in command, pointed out the fact that North Korea has been moving troops forward along the demilitarized zone, where 70 percent of the 1.2 million-man Korean army is deployed with enough heavy artillery to be able to substantially damage Seoul, killing millions.  And there are reports that nerve agents may also be deployed along the DMZ.  Since my visit in December, the 800,000 forward-deployed North Korean troops have been placed on high alert and are prepared to move instantly.  North Korea, isolated with its failing economy, has clearly placed its total focus, not on feeding its people, but on developing its military, its missiles and its nuclear capability — all in defiance of treaties it has signed.

I believe the blame for precipitating this crisis lies squarely with North Korea, which clearly violated the agreed framework by beginning the surreptitious development of nuclear capacity, but it also appears clear to me that the Administration's handling of events on the Korean Peninsula over the last two years, as well as broader foreign policy rhetoric and statements, have served, ironically, to fuel North Korea's well known paranoia and made the situation much more difficult to manage.

First, the Administration failed to endorse President Kim Dae Jung's "Sunshine Policy" when President Kim visited the White House in March 2001.  This move was perceived as a humiliation in South Korea.  It helped set the stage for the rising tide of anti-Americanism, and was seen as a sign by the North that the Administration was intent on a policy of isolation and confrontation.

Second, in January of 2002, the Administration issued a document called the Nuclear Posture Review, which states that there are certain situations in which the United States would contemplate and perhaps engage in a first-use of nuclear weapons. One of the scenarios in this Review included North Korea.  Now, Secretary Colin Powell has said, "Well, that Review is not really operative policy."  Nonetheless, it goes out all over the world.  It's a document in the library.  It's a document that, I think, is worth everyone reading.

Third, in September 2002, the Administration issued its National Security Strategy, which states that the United States reserves the right to strike preemptively, even without an imminent threat, if the Administration believes another nation poses a threat to the United States.

And fourth, including North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" in the 2002 State of the Union address, along with statements by the president saying that he loathed Kim Jong ll, calling him names, and saying that he deliberately starves his own people, all helped fuel North Korea's paranoia and belligerence.

Meanwhile, one other troubling aspect of the Korean crisis is the growing anti-American sentiment in South Korea.  The new President, Roh Moo Hyun, won the election in an atmosphere of anti-Americanism.  And in some quarters, our 37,500 troops stationed there are increasingly unwelcome.  The anti-American sentiment has been galvanized by the accidental deaths of two young Korean girls, 14 years old, who were run down and killed by a large tank-like tracked vehicle on a narrow road while the girls were walking to a birthday party.  This was the chassis of an M60 tank on maneuvers.  A major outcry arose after the two servicemen driving the vehicle were acquitted in United States military court on charges of negligent homicide. 

So the North Korean situation offers no easy solution.  But I am very pleased to see that after so many weeks of refusing to negotiate directly, the Administration has now opened the door to the high-level discussion and, yes, negotiation.  This is a welcome and an imperative change.  It is the only acceptable course and the result may well determine the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts, not only in this crisis, but in dealing with all other crises that may be down the road as nations strive to become nuclear.  There must be direct and multilateral discussions between North and South Korea, Japan, China and Russia as well as the United States.  This solution is everyone's business and the responsibilities of the leaders of all nations.   

Now, much of what the Administration has done since September 11 to safeguard U.S. security interests has been necessary and right and I have supported these efforts.  I believe the Administration has been correct in identifying the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially if they fall into the hands of terrorists, as one of the top challenges facing United States foreign policy today.  But in Iraq and North Korea, the Administration has been pursuing two very different approaches, and at times contradictory approaches, which have confused and angered many of our closest friends and allies.  With Iraq, the Administration is beating the drums of war.  With North Korea, it is pursuing multilateral diplomacy with a peaceful resolution of the crisis.  But these two crises, if you think about it, are similar in many respects and thus the question remains: can diplomacy be an effective tool in this new century to stay the ambitions of those states which seek nuclear weapons?  Or is the use of force our only recourse?

I believe that the Administration's current policy towards North Korea is more likely to produce a peaceful and acceptable outcome than its policy toward Iraq.  If you look at the different approaches to each of these problems, alongside the Administration's broader foreign policy statements and rhetoric, it's no wonder that serious questions about America's role in the world have been raised both here and abroad.

The Administration's emphasis on unilateral action, the dismissal of international law, treaties, institutions and the dominant focus on military power as put forward in the doctrine of preemption — that's the rationale for unilateral preemptive attack — the National Security Strategy which aims to make the United States the preponderant and unchallengeable military power in the world, and the Nuclear Posture Review which states scenarios in which the United States would engage in first use of nuclear weapons, even against non-nuclear states, are particularly troubling.  Taken at face value, these positions mean that the United States holds for itself the right to strike another sovereign nation – to wage war, if you will – even in the absence of imminent threat, but based solely on the perception of a sufficient threat.  Despite Administration efforts to downplay the actual wording in these documents, they are, in my view, unnecessarily provocative and dangerous.  I strongly believe now, more than ever, that Teddy Roosevelt had it right — "Walk softly and carry a big stick." 

As a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush spoke eloquently about the need for America to conduct itself with humility in international affairs.  I remember him saying during the second Presidential debate on October 11, 2000, and I quote,

“If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us.  And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.”

Yet one of the things I have found on the trips I've made abroad in the past year is that our allies across the globe increasingly believe that the United States is anything but humble.  They feel the United States does not listen to its allies, has shown disregard for treaties and international organizations, and has become increasingly unilateral.  As a result, we've lost much of the good will that followed the 9/11 attacks.

The preeminent position America occupies in the world today, I believe, rests only in part on our military and economic strength.  In large part, it is also due to our moral influence and our unquenchable quest for truth, for justice and for freedom – for our belief that all people are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Regardless of whether one views Iraq or North Korea as the bigger threat, one thing they both have in common is that the United States is much more likely to be successful in dealing with them and safeguarding our own national security interests if we're able to act in concert with our friends and our allies.

So, bottom line.  We stand today at an important decision point in the history of our nation and the world.  Will the United States turn away from the successful bipartisan tradition of supporting a world ordered by law and pursue instead a unilateral path or will we recommit our nation to the achievement of workable democratic structures, to law and diplomacy and to constructive leadership that produces coalitions to bring about just solutions?  There may be times, when all else fails, that unilateral American military action will be necessary — and Iraq may well turn out to be a case in point.  However, in my view, this has not yet been established, and war must always be a last resort.  But the spirit of our foreign policy should not be the establishment of American hegemony, any more than we would want to see the establishment of Al Qaeda's vision of a new radical fundamentalist Islamic world.

More important, I strongly believe that a foreign policy oriented towards cooperation and consultation will, in the long run, prove to be a more effective guarantor of United States national security than one of unilateralist impulse and confrontation. 

Thank you.