Bidden, Bayh, & Lieberman(PPI/DLC) Call For "Progressive Internationalism

PPI Analysts Join Call for "Progressive Internationalism"

Senators Biden & Bayh to Endorse Strong Foreign Policy Alternative


For Immediate Release:
Contact: Karin Kullman Freedman/John Bray (202) 546-0007 / (800) 546-0027

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Thursday, October 30th, U.S. Senators Joseph Biden and Evan Bayh will participate in a briefing with a group of leading U.S. defense and foreign policy analysts for the release of Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic Strategy for National Security.

"As public doubts grow about President Bush's stewardship of our nation's security, the need for a progressive alternative is more urgent than ever," said PPI President Will Marshall, a co-author of the new statement. "This statement outlines a better plan, grounded in the Democratic Party's best traditions of tough-minded internationalism, for making Americans safer and restoring respect for American leadership."

Progressive Internationalism is the work of a group of prominent Democratic national security experts, many of whom occupied high security and diplomatic posts in the Clinton Administration. "The signers of this statement represent a rising generation of Democratic leadership in foreign affairs," said Marshall. "Like Harry Truman and John Kennedy, they believe in the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate, but to lead the world toward liberty and democracy."

The group includes*:
Ron Asmus, German Marshall Fund
James Blaker, PPI
Lael Brainard, Brookings Institution
Kurt Campbell, CSIS
Gregory Craig, Williams and Connolly
Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution
Michhle Flournoy, CSIS Phil Gordon, Brookings Institution
Edward Gresser, PPI
Will Marshall, PPI
Michael McFaul, Carnegie Endowment
Steven Nider, PPI
Kenneth Pollack, Brookings Institution
Jeremy Rosner, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
(* Affiliations are for identification purposes only.)


Media interested in attending this event should RSVP to John Bray at (202)547-0007.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WHO:

Sen. Joseph Biden, Senior Democrat, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Sen. Evan Bayh, Chair, Democratic Leadership Council
Ron Asmus, The German Marshall Fund
Kurt Campbell, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Michhle Flournoy, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Will Marshall, President, Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)
And others...

WHAT:

Briefing for Release of New Democratic Framework for U.S. Foreign Policy Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic Strategy for National Security

WHEN:

Thursday, October 30, 2003 at 2:30 p.m.

WHERE:

Reserve Officers Association, One Constitution Avenue, NE, Washington, D.C.


http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=108&contentid=252132

Is it just me, or am I sensing a possible DLC PNAC?

we already have a group like that and it is called the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.

http://www.realisticforeignpolicy.org/

Maybe the DLC is adopting Kerry's views as their own? Hard to imagine Lieberman would like that much.

Senator John Kerry Remarks


Georgetown University -For January 23, 2003


Thursday, January 23, 2003
As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

We are all of us too aware, since September 11th, of the gravity of the times and the greatness of the stakes. Having won the Cold War, a brief season of content has been succeeded by a new war against terrorism which is an assault on the very progress we have made.

Throughout our history, in peaceful exertion and in armed struggle, we were steadfast - we were right on the central issue of freedom, and we prevailed. And because we prevailed the world is a far better place than it was or would otherwise have been. The world today has a strong democratic core shaped by American ingenuity, sacrifice, and spirit. But on the periphery are many unstable and dangerous places, where terrorists seek to impose a medieval dark age. As we learned so brutally and so personally, we do face a new threat. But we also face a renewed choice - between isolation in a perilous world, which I believe is impossible in any event, and engagement to shape a safer world which is the urgent imperative of our time. A choice between those who think you can build walls to keep the world out, and those who want to tear down the barriers that separate "us" from "them." Between those who want America to go it alone, and those who want America to lead the world toward freedom. The debate over how the United States should conduct itself in the world is not new. After all, what is today's unilateralism but the right's old isolationist impulse in modern guise? At its core is a familiar and beguiling illusion: that America can escape an entangling world...that we can wield our enormous power without incurring obligations to others...and that we can pursue our national interests in arrogant ways that make a mockery of our nation's ideals. I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security. I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world. Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism -- it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others. In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world. We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world.

That vision is defined by looking to our best traditions -- to the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in two world wars and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the Cold War. These leaders recognized that America's safety depends on energetic leadership to rally the forces of freedom And they understood that to make the world safe for democracy and individual liberty, we needed to build international institutions dedicated to establishing the rule of law over the law of the jungle. That's why Roosevelt pushed hard for the United Nations and the World Bank and IMF. It's why Truman insisted not only on creating NATO, but also on a Marshall Plan to speed Europe's recovery. It's why Kennedy not only faced down the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but also signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and launched the Peace Corps to put American idealism to work in developing countries. He spoke out for an America strong because of its ideals as well as its weapons.

For us today, the past truly is prologue. The same principles and strength of purpose must guide our way. Our task now is to update that tradition, to forge a bold progressive internationalism for the global age. As I said last summer in New York, for Democrats to win America's confidence we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe. You can't do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in world politics...who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus than necessarily protecting our vital interests. Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. I believe they deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold, progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decades, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are, in the truest sense, not just issues of international order and security, but vital issues of our own national security. So how would this approach, this bold progressive internationalism, differ from the Bush Administration's erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement? The answer starts by understanding the nature and source of the threat we face.

While we must remain determined to defeat terrorism, it isn't only terrorism we are fighting. It's the beliefs that motivate terrorists. A new ideology of hatred and intolerance has arisen to challenge America and liberal democracy. It seeks a war of Islam - as defined by extremists - against the rest of the world and we must be clear its epicenter is the Greater Middle East.

It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are breeding this virulent new form of anti-American terrorism. If you look at countries stretching from Morocco through the Middle East and beyond...broadly speaking the western Muslim world...what you see is a civilization under extraordinary stress. The region's political and economic crisis is vividly captured in a recent report written by Arab scholars for the United Nations Development Program and the Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development. Let me quote:

"The wave of democracy that transformed governance in most of the world has barely reached the Arab states...The freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development."
>>>>>>>>>
www.johnkerry.com

Agreed. I don't think we'll get anything close to Kerry with Lieberman, Bidden and Bahy involved with it. They'd have to all have radically changed their past views and I don't see that happening.

The DLC and PNAC are joined at the hip, but the DLC branch of PNACers consider themselves more "internationalist" in their pursuit of the self-same Empire.

Whereas this is a PNAC-type plan to use any purported human rights abuses as an excuse for imperialism.

Oh no, don't 'dominate'.... just keep toppling democratically elected governments like in the good ol' days.


NEXT!!!