SHEILA JOHNSON: Impact '08 is generously funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Impact '08 is co-chaired by the former Clinton Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, and former Reagan Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, and has been endorsed by many other of our country's most distinguished foreign policy and national security leaders and experts, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and over 50 of our nation's former top military commanders. 

Our coalition is united in the belief that greater U.S. investments in global development and diplomacy are critical to promote America's national security, economic prosperity, and moral leadership.

At CARE, we are committed to saving lives and fighting global poverty. CARE, and our partners in the NGO community believe that the United States has a moral responsibility to offer the impoverished hope for a better future.

One billion people are living on less than $1 a day, and 2.6 billion -- nearly 40 percent of the world's population -- living on less than $2 a day. The needs are enormous. Ten million children die every year, of preventable diseases before age 5, 77 million children don't attend school. Child malnutrition rates rising in Africa and Asia, 1 billion people lack access to clean water, 2.6 billion lack access to basic sanitation, and 1.6 billion lack access to clean energy sources.

Yet, at CARE, we have seen the small investments in health, education, and micro-enterprise, and other global development programs provide enormous returns for poor communities overseas, and for us here at home.

Our next President must help America lead with the strength of our values, ideas and ingenuity to fight global poverty. It is the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do.

Ifunana, thank you, and I love you.

MR. MALLETT: I am pleased to be here representing the American business community, which strongly supports the Center's Impact '08 initiative. Pfizer is joined by over 400 companies, large and small, in this coalition, that includes Boeing, and Caterpillar, Google, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Motorola -- just to name a few -- along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In today's global marketplace, development programs spur economic growth in America, and among our allies. It promotes trade, and it creates jobs here at home. American businesses like Pfizer, and other companies understand that fighting global poverty, stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases, and fostering economic opportunity for all is important to our bottom line, and it demonstrates our values as companies, and as American companies.

With both the private and public sectors investing more in global health, increased cultural exchanges, development and diplomacy, we can create a better, safer and more prosperous United States of America and the world.

Now, today's session is entitled, "Building a Better, Safer World -- What Would an Obama Presidency Do?" 

We are fortunate to have with us today several of Senator Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisors and surrogates. We look forward to hearing how an Obama Administration would address some of today's greatest global challenges, an strengthen our country's engagement with the world. On behalf of the Center, we thank Senator Obama for all of his commitments that he's made so far, in increasing U.S. investments in development and diplomacy, as key tools for global engagement and national security.

Now, I am pleased to introduce our moderator, Senator Gary Hart. Senator Hart, who is at home here in Colorado, is one of our country's most respected voices on foreign policy and national security. He was co-chair of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, which performed the most comprehensive review of national security since 1947, and proposed a sweeping overhaul of U.S. National Security for the post-Cold War era.

During his 12 years in the United States Senate, representing the great State of Colorado, he served on the Armed Services Committee, among others. He has also joined Secretary Albright, in endorsing Impact '08's call on the candidates.

Senator Hart is currently the Worth Chair Professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, and he's also chair of the board of the American Security Project.

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Senator Gary Hart.

SENATOR HART: Mr. MALLETT, thank you very much, I accept your nomination.

SENATOR HART: I had an opportunity to meet with many of you a couple of days ago on a similar panel, and took that occasion, as I will today, to act as unofficial greeter for the State of Colorado.

As the introduction indicated, I had the honor of representing this State in the United States Senate for 12 years. We are honored to have this Convention here, I hope all of you have enjoyed and are enjoying your week in what I described a couple of days ago as "real America."

We're very proud of the fact that Secretary Madeleine Albright is from Denver, and from Colorado, this is her home, and I suspect before the campaign is over, we will find deep family roots for Barack Obama here in Colorado.

I want to introduce our panel. A week or two ago, Senator Obama assured the nation that he was being advised by a world-class foreign policy team, and I think he used the number of 300 people. That just about includes everyone, but what you have before you today is the real cream of the crop, and I know there is no ambition on this platform, but don't be surprised if the people you hear from today end up, hopefully, in January in Washington, in an Obama Administration.

I'm going to give brief introductions to our -- of our panel, in the order in which they are going to make introductory remarks. And after those introductory remarks, we're going to try to arrive at some overview of how a President Obama would think about America's role in the world, and provide a context for then moving on to specific topics, specific geographical challenges, and specific issues that a future Administration is going to face. And then, hopefully, with a few minutes left over, we'll try to take your questions from the audience.

You will hear first from Dr. Anthony Lake. I think almost all of you know that Tony Lake was the National Security Advisor for President Clinton, he is currently distinguished professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, a very famous foreign service school at Georgetown University.

Following Dr. Lake, you will hear from Secretary Richard Danzig. Richard Danzig was Secretary of the Navy, also in the second Clinton Administration. He has authored books on national service, a topic that some of us care deeply about, and is currently senior fellow at the Center for Naval Analysis.

Following Dr. Danzig, we will have Congressman Adam Smith. Congressman Smith from the State of Washington, plays a key role in the House of Representatives in shaping foreign policy. Many of us in the Senate think -- thought that was our job, but people like Congressman Smith are increasingly asserting themselves in the other body in the Congress.

He is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, where he serves on the Subcommittee on African Global Health and Asia, the Pacific, and Global Environment, a busy subcommittee.

Following Congressman Smith, we'll hear from Mr. Greg Craig, a very prominent attorney in Washington, an early supporter of Senator Obama's, and a key advisor. Now, several key positions in Clinton Administration, including Assistant to the President and Special Counsel in the White House, and Director of Policy Planning under Secretary of State Albright.

And then, next to last, Gail Smith, is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, one of the leading policy institutes in Washington in recent years. During the Clinton years, Ms. Smith served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council.

Rounding out the panel in opening remarks will be, importantly, Dr. Susan Rice, known to many of us as "our" Dr. Rice, and to a few of us as the "better" Dr. Rice.

SENATOR HART: Susan's expertise -- as, I think, most of you know -- in foreign policy and national security is reflected in her previous service as United States Assistant Secretary of State in the Department of State for African Affairs, and a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council.

So, first, Dr. Lake?

DR. LAKE: Thank you very much, Gary.

First of all, it's a privilege to hear two eloquent exception speeches today, and I want to thank you for the great advice you've been giving us for, well, over a year.

And I also should add that you should not -- we're all here in a private capacity, and we're not reflecting our institutions. In fact, I would like to have a ground rule in which whatever I say that each of you individually agrees with, that reflects, I can promise you, Senator Obama's views. Anything you hear me say that you do not agree with is totally my own opinion.

Let me begin with a set of rhetorical questions, and they are rhetorical. And that is, is the United States more secure today than it was at the turn of the century? Are our allies more secure than they were? Is there greater peace in the world than there was at the turn of the century? Is our planet healthier than it was at the turn of the century? And the answer, obviously, to all of those questions is no.

There are many reasons for that, but among them are a series of mistakes that we have made in the United States over the past 7 or 8 years, and one of them is simply a failure to act in the face of urgent problems. These years have been, I believe, as Winston Churchill I think it was, said of the 1930s "The years [indiscernible]." And we have lost ground in ways that we should not have. And that is why, with a sense or urgency and passion, or as much passion as a reserved New Englander has about anything other than the Boston Red Sox, I have been so involved in the Obama campaign over the last year and a half, because we have to change our course, and Barack Obama will do that.

Let me take just a few minutes to describe, in very general terms, what I have perceived as his approach to the issues that the panel will be discussing, and let me do it in the terms of 5 different aspects of his thinking and intentions. I notice some of you grabbing pencils the way my students do when they say, "Finally, he's getting organized." The problem is, I often forget the fifth, but let me try.

The first is that he is in his thinking, integrative. He rebels against the straitjacket of doctrines. He wants to be clear in his goals, in his principles, in his strategies, but he wants to be very practical, very practical in how he pursues those goals. And he doesn't like to be put into the box of any particular school of thought, then, about how to achieve them. So, that is point one, and I think you can see that, this method of integrative thinking, if you look back at a speech he gave in August 1st, 2007, on how to combat terrorism, in which he was integrating many different aspects of a strategy.

The second principle, then, or descriptive element in all of this is, therefore, we need to integrate the various aspects of American power and influence. Our military power, our diplomatic power, our moral authority, our economic power -- all of them, and bring them together, and that means that we have to reinvigorate them, after years of neglect. 

It means rebuilding our military after its become so tattered in Iraq, it means restoring, again, our moral authority, and abiding by our constitution and providing an example for the world, and it means, perhaps, something that he has emphasized most over the last year and a half, restoring the notion of American diplomacy. And bringing American power and American diplomacy together. Because diplomacy without power will fail, and as we have seen over recent years, power without diplomacy is positively dangerous to us, and to others.

This means, in order to do that, first of all, a call to service of Americans, and a sacrifice that I have not seen since I cast my very first vote, which was for John F. Kennedy, in 1960. It means making appointments based on competence, rather than on political loyalty, and it means rebuilding the institutions of the Army, and the other institutions within the American government.

I've got to tell you, I was amazed when I went to a huge rally and as a former Foreign Service Officer, was also thrilled, when I heard for the first time, a Presidential candidate say, not only do we have to double foreign assistance -- which has not always been popular in the past, and we have to build up the Peace Corps -- but we have to build up the U.S. Foreign Service, and I heard thousands of young people applauding. Our Foreign Serve is a wonderful institution, I have never heard it applauded before in an American audience, and it was quite wonderful.

A third integrative aspect of this is that he understands that we no longer can say our foreign policy is foreign. The fact is, that the United States cannot be strong abroad if we have a weak healthcare system, a growing national debt, a weak educational system at home, and it means, for example, that we cannot seriously help lead the world in our greatest -- what I believe is our greatest long-term national security threat, and one that Gary Hart has done so much great work on, which is climate change, so long as we are guzzling gas here at home. So, he integrates the foreign and the domestic in a way I have not seen before.

A fourth aspect of this is that he really does think strategically, and this means that when -- that he insists that before -- and this was his criticism of the War in Iraq -- before, especially, we send our young men and women abroad into combat, we have to have clear strategic goals, a definition of success.

You wrote about it in the Denver Post, Gary, very well, a few days ago.

But, it also means that, while we address all of the specific, immediate challenges around the world, and I won't begin to list them all, it's a daunting agenda, we have to keep our eye on the long-term challenges that face us, such as nuclear proliferation, and such as climate change itself.

FEMALE SPEAKER: If you say so.

DR. LAKE: I do say so, okay.

And, finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the concept that he has talked repeatedly about, and that is common security.

The understanding that Americans must have, that what happens in the far corners of the world to individuals in their daily lives has an impact on the lives of American citizens here at home. And that means, that since the world faces common challenges, there is no alternative to working together to solve those problems -- all of us.

I was very impressed, and thrilled, when I watched his speech in Berlin, and I saw a huge crowd of Europeans waving American flags, and listening to it. And my first reaction was, "That's wonderful, they like Barack Obama." My second reaction was, "That's wonderful, they like America, as they see it in Barack Obama." But my third reaction, and the most important one was that I believe that they wanted to see a reassertion of American leadership which listens, rather than lectures. And which works for the common good through common action.

This is, in essence, what we're working for in this campaign, is to build, again, the political will in the United States to carry out that leadership. But this is, and I'm sure it will be welcomed by many in this room, but it is a challenge for you, as well, because our question will be, do you each, in your countries, have the political will to join with the United States in that kind of action for the common good? And that is an open question and that is a challenge that I hope, and expect, that you will meet as we work for it here.

Finally, just one last quick word about the nature of his leadership, because I had questions about it, even as I signed on, but my questions have been resolved as I looked at the campaign, which so reflects him. Focused, competent, tough, strategic. And that very much reflects how he approaches issues, but most important to me, has been his vision of an America that is surmounting our divisions, that is coming together again, because that is the America that is the strongest ally, that is the America that can work most effectively with you to fight our common causes, and that is the America that has inspired me, and will inspire all of those people you will see tonight at the stadium, as they cheer him, as, like you, he accepts the nomination.

SENATOR HART: Okay, thank you.

Dr. Richard Danzig?

DR. DANZIG: Well, I've been asked to speak a little bit about the national security, particularly the Defense Department part of this problem, having been the Secretary of the Navy, and being very involved in discussions with Senator Obama about these issues.

I would say, at the outset, that in Senator Obama's mind, and I think this is very much the center for so many of us. Military issues are framed on your approach to preventive steps that diminish the need to use military force. National security isn't just about the Department of Defense. And very strong initiatives, as Senator Obama has pressed, for example, to reduce the amount of nuclear weaponry in the world, to set a goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, or efforts to expand, and Senator Obama would double our foreign aid program, or to strengthen our State Department in a way that Tony Lake just talked about. Those kinds of efforts contribute to the prevention of problems that are fundamental to relieving the burdens of our military, and creating a world in which the military tool can be used for the things the military should be used for, and not an extraordinary array of situations that would be better dealt with through preventive means.

Having said that, I think a second, very important framing component is the notion of multilateralism, and the involvement of other nations. Absolutely fundamental that we need to rebuild our alliance relationships, and recognize that going it alone puts too much burden on American forces. There are things that our allies can do with us that terribly important, and there are other international instruments that can be used -- the United Nations, for example, is a peacekeeping force -- they're extraordinarily helpful.

Coming to the core of what I've been asked to speak about, the Defense Department world, I would emphasize that we have given the Bush Administration an extraordinarily healthy national security establishment. And we are receiving from it one which is, in a variety of ways, been crippled and emaciated, and overstrained. The problems of our national security arise partly because this Administration has militarized national security, but partly also, because it has created so many situations in which it has not adequately understood the military, or supported the military. And we have an opportunity, indeed, a responsibility to change that in the time that lies ahead.

I'll offer three specific examples of areas, and we can come back in the discussion of specifics, to talk about any or all of these as you'd like.

The first is the command atmosphere. One of the more remarkable statements in the course of this Administration, Secretary Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, said that he had, "given the Generals everything they wanted." And this struck me as very wrong on two counts -- first, it wasn't an accurate description of the facts, and I know this may seem to many in the Administration to be a small objection, but I think it's worth recording.

DR. DANZIG: The second, though, is that it's the wrong principle. A civilian leader has a strong obligation to listen to military advice, and to understand it. And then he has an obligation to act in his own strategic judgment, as to what -- taking account of the full range of American interests -- is the most central and right thing for America in these contexts.

Senator Obama strongly grasps that, and I see it powerfully in the way he listens to the military. I've seen him in large numbers of meetings with military officers, both retired and active duty.

But then in addition, he has an obligation, as a civilian leader, to say what he thinks, and make large-scale strategic judgments. We haven't seen strategies from this Administration, and in situations like Iraq and Afghanistan, we need them.

And when Senator Obama says Iraq is one part of a larger puzzle, he not only is making comments and judgments about Iraq, but he's making a strategic judgment that, for example, at least two combat brigades must be redeployed to Afghanistan, something he's said for several years, and something that has begun to be picked up on now.

Congressman Smith is going to be speaking about Afghanistan, particularly, I won't extend the example. But it's emblematic of an understanding of what it means to be Commander-in-Chief, and what it means to have a relationship with the military that is healthy, that involves listening, and at the same time, steps up to our responsibilities as civilians.

A second area is with respect to the manpower side. This Administration has come in infatuated with technology, notions of transformation. The lifeblood of our military is our people. And no one understands this better than Senator Obama. And it is reflected in the policies one has towards recruitment, towards retention, towards strain on the military, towards use of things like stopping loss provisions that keep people from leaving when they've reached the contractual time at which they're entitled to leave.

Senator Obama, early on, embraced the notion that we need to expand the Army about 65,000 people, the Marine Corps by 27,000 people, we can talk about the specifics later. We need to maintain quality in doing that, we need to increase the recruitment levels, and we need to make our commitments, for example, in Iraq consistent with the ability of our military [indiscernible] and preserve the very core of our well-being, which is the extraordinary men and women who make up the United States military.

And the discussion about veterans also has to be seen in that context. Senator Obama comes to the Senate and asks to become a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, in large measure, because he's extraordinarily pained by the neglect of our veterans. We offer this high-flown rhetoric, and we don't fund the Veterans Administration. He's pushed for that year after year. We have homeless veterans, he's introduced legislation to deal with these issues -- they're fundamental to our national security as well as our moral obligations. And on both of those counts, or either one alone, would be sufficient, both together, powerfully make a case here.

And third, and finally, there are judgments that could be made about our forces, and how we strengthen them to deal with future contingencies. And those judgments cannot be a consequence of ideology -- some theory of the world, like this Administration came in talking about China as a potential contingency, it switched to global terrorism radically and rapidly after 9/11 -- one needs to recognize that the extent of our risks in the world is not highly predictable. That we build military forces to exist over a period of decades, and that as such, they need to be prepared for the full range of contingencies we might deal with. And that means strengthening their ability to deal with what we call counterinsurgency capabilities, but at the same time, to deal with a classic combined arms kind of contingency. And we can't over invest in one or the other, we need a balance in that kind of investment.

So, we can and will, I hope, talk about a number of these particulars, but I would suggest to you the proposition here by NVI, that what we're trying to do is build a better, safer world is absolutely right. At the core of Senator Obama's approach is the notion that that cannot be entirely a military thing. We must not militarize national security, we must make it all elements of our national power, as Dr. Lake said, but then in addition -- at the very core of it -- if we're going to build a better, safer world, we need a stronger, healthier military, and that involves components like understanding how a civilian leader relates to them, understanding that the people are absolutely essential to it, and understanding that we can't take an ideological approach to the kinds of range of risks that we confront.

SENATOR HART: Richard, thank you.

SENATOR HART: Congressman Adam Smith?

MR. SMITH: Thank you. 

Well, first of all, I want to say what an honor it is to be on the stage with Senator Hart -- as I've told him every time I see him, I worked on his campaign in 1984, and I'm sure everybody comes up to you and says that, but I actually did. It was a great experience.

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: In the State of Washington, I was honored to work for you then, it's an honor to be here now.

I want to talk a little bit about counterterrorism policy, and what Senator Obama's approach to that would be as President, obviously this is going to be a major issue for some time to come.

I think the first thing that struck me, and I signed on with the campaign very early, is his very quick and firm grasp on these issues around counterterrorism -- what is most important and what the best to approach it is.

And I'm going to touch on three areas, I'm not a professor, so I don't want to go with 5, that's risky, I'm just going to do three.

But the first thing that Senator Obama grasped is where the most important fights are. There are a lot of violent extremists in the world, a lot of people threaten us, we have to be smart about where we choose to spend our resources. 

As Secretary Danzig pointed out, those resources are not limitless, and you have to make wise choices. And we reflected that when we opposed the Warner Act at the beginning because it was a distraction, and it has continued to consistently be one of the loudest voices for the fact that we were neglecting the importance of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And those are the regions that threaten us most, in terms of what violent extremists do, at a time when John McCain was still saying that Afghanistan was just find, it was taken care of, we don't need to worry about it anymore -- Senator Obama was one of the ones who understood what was going on over there. How the very people that struck us on 9/11 were reconstituting themselves, and presenting a threat to us. 

So, I think that firm grasp is very helpful, and there will be choices again in the next Administration, we don't know exactly what's going to come up. Right now, if you look at Iraq and Afghanistan, and decide where should our resources be, Senator Obama and those of us on the stage, and others, can look at it and say that those resources have been disproportionately put on Iraq and we've neglected Afghanistan. There will be more choices. And I have a great deal of trust in Senator Obama, to make those choices wisely.

The other issue, and I'll sort of throw the last two together, is the difference between direct and indirect action when it comes to fighting terrorism. I serve on the Armed Services Committee and chaired the Terrorism Subcommittee, so I've had the opportunity to travel the world, as well as working with our Special Forces guys directly, to see how they do try to bring that fight onto the violent extremists who threaten us.

And the first important thing about Senator Obama's approach is on the direct action piece. He has made it clear from the very beginning that he will not shy away from that. That he recognizes that there is a dedicated group of people in the world right now, who quite frankly would like to kill all of us, if they could. And we need to pay attention to them. Now, that's not the only thing we need to pay attention to, and that gets to the indirect action piece, which is second, and the one this Administration, I believe, has neglected, and placed us at greater jeopardy and that Senator Obama is very focused on changing that approach.

But on the direct action piece, we need to be smart on how we find the high-value targets, as we call them, and make sure that they don't threaten us, and I think Senator Obama understands that, and that's why he has said quite clearly, if we have actionable intelligence on one of those high-value targets, we will capture, or kill, that person to protect and defend our country, and he'll be smart about how he does that.

And also, I think, the pragmatism of Senator Obama comes in here, as well. If there are things -- and there are things, believe it or not, that President Bush has done right, he is not going to reflexively change them in the same way that the Bush Administration did with the Clinton Administration. Basically, for the first 2 years of the Bush Administration, it's like, "Well, whatever Clinton did, we have to do the opposite, regardless of what it is." Senator Obama is a lot more pragmatic than that.

And on the direct action piece, the way we have reorganized the various components of that -- the Special Operations Comment, CIA, FBI, all the different pieces of it, and put it into an integrated command -- has been quite effective, and actually we've seen some of that effectiveness in Iraq, under General McCrystal, who did a brilliant job leading that effort.

But what hasn't been paid attention to too much, is the indirect piece. And that is getting at counterinsurgency, and stopping insurgencies before they take hold, and before we have to expend so much money, and so many lives, and was a very difficult effort to put them down. And that, really, is all about development, and what I'm very excited about, as I look forward to an Obama Administration, is integrating what the military does in indirect action, and to a lot of what our other panelists are talking about on global development. Because, the issue here is, the better developed an area it is, the less vulnerable to an insurgency it is. It is really just that simple. 

The two quick examples, there's a General, a retired General from the Special Forces, who was talking about when he was doing work in Northern Africa in the early 80's, he said of all the resources they had available, and all of the training that they had, and all the weapons, the single-most valuable thing that he had was a dentist. Because that dentist provided healthcare to the local people -- well, dental care -- and in doing that, they got all of the intelligence they needed. The locals said, "If you can take care of us with a dentist, we'll tell you whatever you want to know."

The other example, of course, I'm sure many of you have heard of, Three Cups of Tea, the book about the young man, Mortenson, I forgot his first name, who basically is building schools, in the farthest, most, you know, the poorest regions in Pakistan, and making an enormous difference. And that sort of development is part of the indirect action piece, and part of what we need to do. 

Because we can do the direct action as absolutely perfectly as possible, and we come pretty close, we have very, very talented members of our military at all levels. That will not stop the spread of violent extremism. Because to some degree, it's a back and forth game. Yes, you take out some extremists, but in killing people, you alienate and aggravate others. Far better to provide the locals with the development they need, to listen to them, and to work with them, so that you don't get to that point.

And just a couple of quick final points on that. Number one, is the human terrain teams that we are now using in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the action is very hot, where the insurgency has gone beyond low level to, certainly, high level. But even there, that indirect action piece -- what human terrain teams do, is they go in and they understand the culture. They understand the village, they understand the local customs, and in so doing, where the human terrain teams have used, we have be able to get villages on our side, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, without firing a shot. And that is a far, far better way to do it, and we'll need to continue to develop that.

And lastly, is the broader counterinsurgency piece. And the Special Operations guys who are working this understand this better than anybody. They need to get in there and work with the local communities to help them on the development piece, because they understand the limitations of taking a straight military approach, better than anybody. So, we have a dedicated group of folks on the Special Ops side who are just waiting for a Commander-in-Chief who will give them the power, the money and the resources to do the indirect action.

I had the opportunity to go to the Southern Philippines, and visit with some of our Special Forces soldiers down there, and they are not firing a shot. They are training, some of the locals deal with that, but they are also digging wells, and building schools, and providing healthcare, and they are very excited about doing that. We need the support on the Commander-in-Chief level for that piece of it. Because ultimately, that is how we will be able to keep violent extremism under control, and make the world a safer place. 

And I know, from working with Senator Obama, and working with these fine people on the stage, they are committed to taking that approach, an approach that will defeat insurgencies before they start by -- as I think Secretary Lake said -- basically getting people to understand that America is there to help, not just there to jam our ideas down their throat. We will work with them in a cooperative way, and in that way we'll make the world a better place for all of us, and I'm very confident that Senator Obama can do that.

SENATOR HART: Congressman, thank you.

SENATOR HART: Mr. Greg Craig.

MR. CRAIG: Well, first, Senator I'd like to thank you for the contributions you have made over 35 years in leading and forming and educating the American public about national security affairs. You've been a terrific voice for Democrats, and we're proud of you, and I want to thank you for that.

MR. CRAIG: Secondly, I want to pay tribute to Madeleine Albright who is sitting right over there, and I want to tell you all, you should buy her books and lend them to the next President, and that will tell you what we should be doing in the next term of office.

She used to say, as Secretary, she was a great Secretary of State and people will be writing books about what she did during those 4 years for many years to come. But, what she used to say, and it would always give me a twinge when she said it, when she became Secretary of State she had all the partisan bones in her body surgically removed.

Now, if you watched the convention floor last night, I for one was grateful that some surgeon put them back in last night, and she is a champion for the Democratic Party.

And thank you, Madeleine.

MR. CRAIG: Finally, I have to report that Senator Hart asked us to operate at 30,000 feet in these opening remarks, and I am sad to report that my engines, these days, can't get above 10,000, and you'll have to live with it.

I begin by pointing out that you have -- I'm sure many of you are wondering why Senator Obama did so well in Dixville Notch in New Hampshire. And the answer is, this is the team that drove to Dixville Notch, which is a tiny little town on the border of New Hampshire and Canada -- has a grand total of 27 people on the voter rolls. But the importance of Dixville Notch is, they open their polls on primary day at midnight. They all vote, and close them 2 minutes later. And the entire world press is there to report on what the results are.

Well, the Obama campaign, in its wisdom, believed that the former Secretary of the Navy, and a ne'er do well lawyer, would do well up in Dixville Notch, and we went up there, and there were about 50 people in the audience, and we thought, this was pretty good. It was 18 degrees below zero, 50 people in the audience, a 3-hour drive. This was a great use of our enormous talent --

MR. CRAIG: We then found out that only 5 were registered voters.

MR. CRAIG: And actually, 3 of them were there for pro-life reasons, and didn't want to have anything to do with us, other than to ask us questions about when did life begin.

MR. CRAIG: At the end of the day, I must report that Senator Obama got 7 votes -- more than any other Democrat in Dixville Notch -- and had we been running the entire State, it would have been a different story.

Just very briefly, many people in the course of the primaries, have criticized the Obama campaign for operating on hope, and generalities and inspirational messages, and then they use this phrase: There's no flesh on the bones, or where is the beef? This group worked very hard with Senator Obama to create speeches, and you will find no more detailed speeches than the ones that were put together by Senator Obama and his national security team, and he gave about 8 of them during the calendar year 2007, and there's a lot of flesh on the -- our bones.

But one of the speeches that he gave -- it was the speech after his statement on race in Philadelphia, so it didn't get a whole lot of attention -- answered exactly the question that is being asked, here. And he identified 5 strategic objectives of his Administration, his first term of office.

I'm just going to identify those very quickly, I'm sure we're going to discuss them later. The first is, and this is the phrase that is an accurate phrase of the way he thinks. To, as responsibly and as carefully as we were irresponsible, and reckless, withdraw and end the War in Iraq.

Secondly, to direct our attention and our energies and our resources at the terrorist threats that really are represented in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is the central front in the War on Terror.

Third, to make progress in the nonproliferation rooms, as Richard said, to eliminate the sources for terrorists' ability to acquire fissional material and manufacture nuclear weapons, and make major steps -- the time is right, it's actually a bipartisan issue -- and make major steps towards building a world without nuclear weapons.

The fourth is to start the process of addressing, seriously, not only domestically, but also internationally, the challenge to our national security, of global climate change.

And the fifth is to reinvigorate, to strengthen the international institutions that we should make more relevant, and to breathe new life into our alliances and our friendships with our friends and allies, and present a new fact to the world, as a leader that has the values that the United States is known for, throughout its history.

Finally, I'd like to say that national security issues have played a role in these primaries, and will play a role in the general election, in a way I think no other campaign has demonstrated.

And so, I am grateful for this new organization, the Center for Global Engagement, its come at the right time, because it's attracting people's attention to precisely the issues that I think are at the heart of selecting the new President of the United States.

Thank you very much.

SENATOR HART: Okay, thank you.

Greg, thank you, and thanks for your kind remarks.

I think you all are aware that gender equality is very, very important in this country these days, even more important in the Democratic Party.

So, in case there's a question about why the two ladies are last, I want you to know that Dr. Rice made the selection of the order, so the theory must be that she's saving the best to the last.

SENATOR HART: Ms. Gail Smith?

MS. SMITH: Thank you very much.

I have to tell you, I've worked on issues of poverty and conflict for 30 years, and to listen to all of the speakers before me talk about the importance of development, I think, says quite a lot about who Barack Obama is, and what he's about.

And Greg is absolutely right, that there is a lot of flesh on the bones, but in making my effort to curry favor with the moderator, I want to take us back up to 30,000 feet, and I think I can count at least as soon as Tony, so let me go with four points. Because I think it's really important, and if we've learned nothing else over the last 8 years, it is that a way the President sees the world, and our role in it, has everything to do with our security and our safety.

And I think the first thing about Barack Obama is that he understands that this is not a uni-dimensional world, as George Bush apparently believes, but a multi-dimensional world. And that the challenges -- when he first steps into the oval office, will not simply be Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, terrorism. But climate change, resource scarcity, global poverty, global trade, economic disparity, the threat of global pandemics. He understands that he will have to do more than one thing at a time, and he's quite capable of doing that.

Second, and importantly, he has an affirmative agenda. We've heard a lot over the last 8 years, and I think our primary message to the rest of the world has been about what we're against. This is a man who starts with what we're for, and he talks often about a vision of our common security and our common humanity, and a world in which we have a majority of capable States, of healthy societies, marching in unison towards a set of common goals. 

And that's a very aspirational vision, it's also a very practical vision, and this is something that Senator Obama understands -- that if we want to deal with terrorism, if we want to fight global poverty, if we want to prevent the spread of global pandemics within our borders, we have to work with every country we can -- it is in our interest to have as many countries on this earth be as capable as possible, and we've got to have societies that can stand up and work with us. And that affirmative vision is one that I think he believes is important to our security, but again, also, to our humanity.

Third, this is a President who will invest in that vision. We will get to the specifics, but I think this is really critical with all we've heard about prevention, and let me just use one example of something he's talked about, which is working with the rest of the world to close the deficit on primary education around the world. In other words, to make our contribution in terms of the diplomatic capital it requires to work with other nations on this earth, and also the financial capital it requires to invest our share, to make sure that every school-aged girl and boy on this earth can go to primary school.

Now, what does that do for us? First of all, that's America acting big. That's America taking the lead in making sure that every kid on this planet has a chance. That's what he talks about at home, that's what he believes in abroad.

Second, think about what that does for out security, and for stability. Think about what Afghanistan would look like if, for the past 20, 30, 40 years, the United States had been in the forefront of closing the primary education deficit. Think what that means in terms of gender equality. We know what happens when young girls are educated. Think what that means in terms of our economic interests. These are investments, these are investments that are important to send a signal to the world that our moral values drive our policy, but are also important to show returns on our security.

Fourth and finally, and it's certainly the least sexy of the topics, but I think Barack Obama understands that to do any of this, we've got to refine and rebuild our capabilities at home. We've heard about what he intends to do with the military, he also understands the importance of our civilian agencies. And as Tony suggested, of the men and women who serve this country, not in uniform, but with their sleeves rolled up around the world, in our foreign and civil service. He's committed to modernizing those systems, so that we can make smart investments, so that we can be capable, and we can fire on all cylinders.

And speaking to you, personally, in terms of why I decided many, many, many months ago to support Barack Obama, it is because he's willing, able, and committed to doing all of these things. And in my view, positioning the United States to lead, to be safe and secure, and to be a prominent leader in that better and safer world over the next 25 years.

I'll stop there, thank you.

SENATOR HART:  Gail, thank you.

We have intervention from Dr. Lake before we hear from Susan.

DR. LAKE: I just wanted to add the answer to your question of why Susan was going last. And there are two reasons. One is that we wanted her to have the opportunity to tell you what the rest of us meant to say during the rest of this panel.

And secondly, because Susan -- together with two extraordinarily talented full-time members of the team, Dennis McDonough and Mark Lippert, who is just back from serving as a Naval Reservist in Iraq, and is now traveling full-time with Senator Barack -- they are the heart and soul of this whole operation.

DR. RICE: Tony, thank you so much.

SENATOR HART: Susan Rice?

DR. RICE: Don't believe anything else Tony Lake says, after that. But I'm grateful for those kind words.

As I sit here with my colleagues with whom I've worked now for what is almost 19 months on a very intensive and daily basis, I have to say I am very proud to be with you on this team, it's one that's worked together extraordinarily collegially, thoughtfully, and I hope will continue to work together as effectively as we have to date.

You all are wonderful, and you're great friends, and this is just one more enjoyable opportunity of collaboration.

And I want to thank you, Senator Hart, for being an early and strong supporter of Senator Obama. For being, as Greg said, an extraordinary statesman and leader. You have been showing us, as a Party, and as Americans, for decades what leadership looks like. And you continue to have a cutting-edge view of what American national security and American leadership in the world should look like. And all of us learn from listening to, and reading, what Gary Hart has to say. And so, we're grateful.

SENATOR HART: I love this panel, this is just --

SENATOR HART: Now, get the hell on with your business.

DR. RICE: Now, let me just say by way of summary, because I think all of us -- my colleagues have been wonderful in laying out at the 30,000-foot level, how Senator Obama will approach critical global challenges.

And what I just want to say by summary is that, what I think distinguishes Barack Obama in this campaign and as an American leader, is that he has a vision, and a set of policies that are informed by, and are suited to, 21st Century security realities.

He understands that the world we're living in today is not the world of a decade ago, a generation ago, of the Cold War, of the Vietnam era, or what have you. It's fundamentally different in so many ways, and Senator Hart, you have written and spoken about this -- whether we're talking about the impact of technology, economic integration, globalization, the fact that we can be threatened by something as simple as we saw in Washington, D.C., as a sniper terrorizing a whole city, with one sidekick for a period of weeks -- this is a different world. The threats are increasingly, as Tony said at the outset, transnational in nature, meaning that they can arise from any part of the planet and spread, very rapidly, to any other part of the planet.

And in that context, we need leadership, we need policies, we need strategies that are geared to that reality.

That is not to say we don't face challenges that emanate from states, we do and we've been reminded of that in recent weeks. But, if our framework is a framework of the mid- to late-20th Century, where we have a single, or an overwhelming adversary, where we see things in zero-sum terms, and black and white, good versus evil, with us or against us, we are going to misconstrue and fail to address the challenges that we face in the 21st Century.

We are not able, effectively, to meet those challenges if we are putting a 21st Century square peg into a 20th Century round hole. And so whether we're talking about the challenge we face at the present from Russia's actions -- we can't simply rewind the clock and assume that it's back to the Cold War, and if we simply the Cold War mindset, and the Cold War strategies that we will know how to adapt and adjust? No. Quite the opposite.

And so Barack Obama has for the duration of this campaign and indeed his whole life in public service, understood the rapidly changing nature of the world in which we're living in, and the fact that given these transnational challenges, we needed a set of integrated a set of integrated, as Tony said, and cooperative solutions that are based on what you have heard repeatedly today, which is the theme of common security, and investing in our common humanity.

And every one of the elements of the discussion that you've heard today, one way or another, come down to recognition that we share a common security, and that our security here in the United States can, and must be, enhanced by investments more broadly, and actions that are commensurate with an understanding that we share a common humanity.

I think that as we digest that, and apply that, we will be doing exactly what the purpose of this session is here today. Senator Obama is not interested in simply dealing with the myriad of challenges and messes that the next President will unfortunately and inevitably inherit from a serious of failed policy decisions that have been made in recent years. There will be clean-up work to do. 

But I'm quite confident in saying that Senator Obama will not believe it, as President that he has done, what needs to be done, and what he set out to do, if we do not implement the affirmative agenda that Gail pointed out, which is about leaving to our children a better world and a better country. And it's not just our children, here in the United States, it's the children of the world because what happens to the children of the world matters powerfully to the children of the United States.

So, that affirmative agenda which you've heard about, the climate change, renewing and enhancing and strengthening our partnerships around the world, dealing with the challenge of proliferation, building our collective global capacity to secure ourselves from, not only terrorism, but challenges like pandemic disease that can be as, or more, deadly.

Brokering and supporting peace in conflict zones around the world from the Middle East to Africa, to South Asia, and investing in global poverty reduction, and building the capacity of people in States to provide more effectively for their people, and for their societies, and to govern democratically and responsibly -- all of these are part of an affirmative agenda that Senator Obama is powerfully committed to pursuing, and that we hope, very much, as Tony said at the outset, you will join with us in pursuing. 

Because none of this can be accomplished in isolation. These are not challenges that the United States can or should attempt to meet alone, they are our shared challenges, by definition. And if we are so fortunate as to see Barack Obama on January 20th next year, put his hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, then we will have an opportunity -- perhaps a unique and unprecedented opportunity, perhaps a fleeting opportunity -- to renew our leadership in the world.

But that opportunity will last but a few short months. Without the rest of the world joining with us in affirming that we all want a positive change, that we can't achieve without each other.

And so, as Tony said, as we ask more of our own leadership, of our own government, of every American citizen in this process of renewal, we will be asking the same of everybody else around the world. And so, we hope very much that together we can, not only build and dig our way out of the challenges of the last many years, but that together we can do just as we set out to do, which is to build a better, safer world for all of us.

SENATOR HART: Susan, thank you.

SENATOR HART: For this collection of world leaders, I can't imagine an hour better spent in terms of understanding what all of us hope will be the foreign policy framework of the next Administration.

Many of you know, in modern times, that Americans like a summary of foreign policy in three words. For the better part of the second half of the 20th Century, our central, organizing principle was containment of Communism. Under Secretary Albright that was, of course, replaced after 1991 with enlargement and engagement. Now, to a large degree, the policy around which we build both foreign and security policy is War on Terrorism.

 Now, one of the few big ideas that has come out in the foreign policy environment in this country in the last few years is the notion of a concert of democracies -- first proposed, I think, in a Princeton study done two or three years ago, picked up by other foreign policy thinkers -- and, oddly enough, a variation of which, I think, is being promoted by Senator McCain.

To use a sports metaphor, now that basketball is an international sport, I'd like to toss a jump ball to the panel, and get various views from them, very briefly, not 5 minutes each, but maybe a minute each, on what they think of a notion such as that to, not to replace the United Nations, but to supplement it.

DR. LAKE: Since I was a co-chairman of the Princeton report, I suspected the finger was going to point in my direction, thank you very much, Gary.

There is a single difference between what many of us who have been talking about as a concert of democracies, and what John McCain, Senator McCain, has talked about as, I believe, an alliance of democracies -- a league of democracies -- which would become a formal institution, formally created through an international conference or whatever, now, which would create, in my view, as somebody who's been working on this idea, the possibility that it could be seen as an alternative to the United Nations.

Many of us who have been thinking about this -- not all, but many us -- see it more as an evolutionary concept in which as democracy, we all hope, spreads throughout the world, in the interests of people there, and our own security, that those nations will, in informal ways, and in various forums, work together to defend our common principles, many of which are the principles that we have been talking about on this stage.

And as that evolves, I hope that it will become one of the mechanisms through which we can help to reform the United Nations in ways that make it more effective, not only in peacekeeping, but in the many other vital ways in which it acts, and I would argue that as Prime Minister Gordan Brown has said, that we, in many ways, face a huge architectural challenge, because our international institutions are those that we inherited from the late 1940s, so we have to look at the international financial institutions, beyond the United Nations. We have to look at the future of NATO, we have to look at the future of all of these institutions, to try to bring them in sync with the world that Susan was describing, which is so different from the late 1940s, and even from the 1990s, and since.

SENATOR HART: Susan?

DR. RICE: I just wanted to add to that -- Senator Obama has long been, and remains very, very committed to supporting, promoting and enhancing democracy and democratic institutions around the world. But, he thinks that the way we have approached it in recent years has, as Secretary Albright often says, given democracy a bad name. 

It can't be promoted through the barrel of a gun. It can't be imposed, it has to be seeded and supported from the ground up, it has to be institution-based, it can't solely evolve around a single or a subsequent election, and indeed, our efforts have to be supportive of that which is happening in a local context. 

And in that frame, what many of you do on a daily basis, and certainly what the National Democratic Institute does, and I'm proud to be a member of their board, is very much in sync with Senator Obama's vision.

As we think about institutional constructs, I think very much as Tony suggested, we have to have an open mind and think about how we adapt our institutions and supplement them to meet 21st Century realities.

Senator Obama has not embraced John McCain's notion of a league of democracies. John McCain's notion is a very exclusionary one, in which those who do not make the cut are in a separate and, by implication, inferior category. 

If that league of democracy's notion is predicated on the theory, and if somehow we just kick out all of the non-democracies, we'll be able to agree and then be able to go on and do whatever it is we need to get done. I think there's a fallacy in there. And that is that democracies on every occasion agree with one another. 

We've had, in many instances, and I'll just mention, for example, the War in Iraq, in which good democracies and close allies too very different views of what was right and what ought to be done.

So, it's based on, in my view, a fallacy, and it's also based on a misconception of what is necessary to tackle many of 21st Century transnational policies that we've talked about. If a group of only democracies could possibly resolve the challenge of climate change, I'd like to understand how that's possible. Or deal only -- or deal effectively with the challenge of proliferation. They can't.

So, we should strengthen our democratic capacities at the national and global level. I think the idea that Tony Lake and others in the Princeton Project put forward is very much more in keeping with a supplementary and collaborative approach that doesn't fall into the pitfalls of the league concept that we've heard from John McCain.

And it doesn't risk doing what so many of these divisive and exclusionary policies risk doing. Which is set us apart, even from our closest allies. I think many of our European partners are skeptical, for example, of the notion of a league of democracies, which is sort of a with us or against redux.

And so, at a time when we need these alliances and partnerships and friendships more urgently than ever before, I think it would be unwise to start by stiff-arming many of our closest partners.

SENATOR HART: Just to prove that this is, in fact, a Democratic panel, Dr. Lake will now respond to Dr. Rice.

DR. LAKE: And very briefly, you may hear a nuance or two of different between us, but this is an argument, or a discussion, that we've been having for many years and I would make a few points.

One is that, when democracies get together, of course, they don't agree. But democracies are peculiarly capable of compromising and working through problems together, and then helping to lead on them, like climate change and other issues.

And secondly, I should note that Senator Obama has not taken a specific position on the notion of a concert of democracies, as you hear here. I suspect his campaign is not the place to work it out, so we will --

SENATOR HART: Before we open it up for questions, let's visit very quickly, if we can three theater issues. First, Iran, second Pakistan, and -- let's go with those two, and then I have one more to come.

Anyone comment on the early controversy inside the Democratic contest on Senator Obama's proposal to talk with the Iranians.

Congressman Smith, and then Richard.

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: I'll be quick. Just the central premise is that engagement is not appeasement -- at the end of the day, that, I think, is the strong message that was sent, and is something that, you know, we got in a lot of trouble with in the last 8 years. And that is the difference -- as has been pointed out, here -- between a unilateral and a cooperative approach to the world, to a certain extent.

It's the idea that we have enough confidence in our diplomatic skills and our strength, to engage with other nations, talk with them, and get something out of it.

Now, certainly, there are times when isolation is a tool, but isolation is a tool that has been way overused in this Administration, and very ineffectively. And, in fact, they've only begun to make progress in a number of key areas, when they've reversed themselves, on issues like dealing with North Korea -- they got us into no end of trouble by coming into the office and again, saying "Clinton talked to North Korea, therefore we won't." Then they woke up 3 years later, and discovered that, you know, maybe we should have been paying closer attention.

So, I think that, certainly specific to Iran, the idea that we have major, major challenges with Iran. Certainly, their support for terrorism, their desire to attack and destroy Israel, and their approach to nuclear weapons. But, simply isolating them wasn't solving the problem.

So, engagement is a way to use our strength. And also, I think, it helps us in terms of bringing in European allies. Because if we're going to be able to put pressure on Iran, we're going to need cooperation. And our European allies are not where we were, the Bush Administration, on this issue. 

So, I think it does point up a broader approach that Senator Obama will use, but it is one of strength, to basically say that we trust our diplomatic skills and our alliances, to be able to engage with even nations that we strongly disagree with, and do so in a way that advances our best interests.

SENATOR HART: Richard?

DR. DANZIG: I would just come back to emphasizing that this connect to the earlier propositions about using all elements of national power. And we have an urgent need to strengthen our sanctions against Iran, and to reserve options of all kinds that are -- that sanction them in the trial, and make clear that there are very adverse consequences from proceeding with a nuclear program, and the way in which they've done it.

On the other hand, we have opportunities, as well, through the kind of engagement Congressman Smith just talked about. And you only look back at the historical record to see how vivid those opportunities can be, and how costly it is not to take advantage of them.

In 2001, after 9/11, we worked with the Iranians, they're participants in supporting some of our activities in Afghanistan, and in the conference in which there were discussions about how to form the Afghan government.

In 2003, the Iranians make an overture through the Swiss to have broad discussions about the U.S.-Iranian relationship. Declining those -- that opportunity in 2003, and pushing away what we began to develop in 2001, leads to a world in which the Iranians have thousands of centrifuges running, and which the Administration's policy has led to greater and greater difficulty with Iran.

We need to take advantage of all of our opportunities. We need not to forswear, or deny the opportunities that involve sanctions, and emphasis on bad things that will follow through Iran, from following the course that it's following. 

But, we also need to set out opportunities there, and indicate that there is a potential for Iran, what should draw them on the positive side, as well.

SENATOR HART: Tony?

DR. LAKE: I just wanted to underline, this is an extremely important issue, an extremely serious issue, and an extremely urgent issue. It could well lead to the worst crisis that we will see over the next 5 years, because the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon will present a huge threat to the security of Israel, to others in the region, to the Europeans, including the Russians, and many others.

It is urgent because it could happen within a few years. The fact that it is so urgent has led Senator Obama repeatedly to say that he hopes that there will be progress between now and next January. That we have one President at a time. That he hopes the Iranians will agree with the European interlocutors who have been meeting with the Iranians, and who -- thank God -- the Americans joined for a recent meeting.

And he is saying that, as soon as he takes office, that we have to have a very serious set of negotiations with the Iranians, in which we, in effect, present them with a choice. That if they go down the road that the Security Council has said they must not do, that the international community, who said that they should no -- a bath they should not follow, that there will be consequences. And therefore, we have to work with other nations now in increasing the leverage that we have for that negotiation, and increasing the sanctions that could be placed on the Iranians. And one of the messages that Senator Obama took to Europe, on his trip, was to discuss with them what those sanctions might be.

And on the other hand, we have to make it clear to the Iranians that they face a much better choice, which is to step back from the direction that they have been pursuing, and to become a more positive force in the Middle East and in the world, generally. And it is a course that will help them build up an economy that is showing considerable strain now.

Everybody in this room should pray that they make that latter choice, but it is in the nature of tough diplomacy, that Barack Obama has called for, that we have to present that choice early next year, if not before, and as clear and strong and direct terms as possible with American participation, in negotiations that we should have been helping to take the lead in all along.

SENATOR HART: Greg?

MR. CRAIG: Just very briefly, I agree with Tony about the seriousness and the urgency of the situation. But the history that Princeton refers to of lost opportunities is important to understand because the question is whether these lost opportunities are lost forever, or whether they can be revived. And to view the situation with Iran as a hopeless situation, leads inevitably to the crisis that we all want to avoid.

To this end, I suggest you read a book, and I'll give you a reading assignment, it's Jim Dobbins' new book called After the Taliban. And it's the story of Jim Dobbins' -- Ambassador Dobbins' experience -- representing the United States with the tribes in Afghanistan and working directly with the Iranians -- not through the Swiss -- and finding out the various opportunities this offers, various initiatives, probably 3, 4, 5 of great significance came into his possession that were translated to the White House, to the State Department, ignored or rejected.

So, that the opportunity was not just one, it was frequent. And we turned our back on that. I would hope that we would go back to the exploration of whether we could those opportunities.

DR. LAKE: Can I make just one last point that I should have made? This is a perfect illustration of an integrative approach, what I was talking about, because at those negotiations, all of options would be on the table -- economic, political and military.

SENATOR HART: Thoughts on Pakistan? I don't know that the candidate has directly addressed this, but it is one of the important and troubled spots on the globe. 

Any ideas from anyone on the panel?

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: I'd start by simply echoing what Tony said about Iran. I think Pakistan is just as serious and just as likely to present a crisis in the short term. When you look at the rise of violent extremism in Pakistan, how it's going back and forth across the border, and most particularly in the lawless region, in the Northwest Frontier and those areas, I mean, that is an area that can definitely spread. It can threaten, first of all, Europe, with terrorist attacks, but also us, as well. And also could threaten the fall of the government in Pakistan, a country with both a lot of violent extremists, and nuclear weapons. So the threat there is extreme, and it's a very, very difficult situation. 

We're in a bad spot now, because Pakistan is trying to figure out their government. We put all of our eggs in the Musharraf basket, long after it was rather clear that that wasn't going to last very long. Didn't find ways to build other alliances, and to strengthen democracy. We talk about democracy, and the biggest reason that Musharraf lost the support of the people -- which he had for a long period of time -- was because of the undemocratic approach of that government. And we simply didn't do enough to try to push and encouraging him to embrace that, that democratic alternative.

And the final thing I'll say about Pakistan is what has been a theme of this panel. Yes, you have to work a lot of these relationships, and that's going to be difficult, and I'll yield to others on the panel, here, who know a lot more about our relationships with Pakistan and specific players, but one of the keys is to build a better relationship with the Pakistani people. They don't like us. They don't trust us, and the relationship is very, very problematic. The best way to get that back is through the development. And I will -- I believe the gentleman's name is Greg Mortensen -- who's out there building schools in Pakistan -- they love him. 

And, okay, we have to do a series of carrots and sticks, I understand that, you know, if they aren't going after the extremists strong enough, you know, we can levy military aid, but let's have one thing that we do that isn't based just on our interests? And why not say, we're going to help build schools in Pakistan, and Afghanistan for that matter, and that, you know, that's not part of our larger battle where we give things and take it away. 

Because that's one of the biggest reasons the Pakistani people don't like us, they basically think we're over there for our own interests. And the second those interests change, we will drop them in a blink of an eye, and they don't trust us. So, we have to have something that's consistent -- a development piece that says, "We're with you for reasons other than just our own self interest."

And the final point on that, when we went over there and helped them, after the earthquake in that way, in a way that wasn't a negotiation over what you do for us, what we do for you, we just said, "You're in trouble, we're going to help." You know, that was the one thing we've done recently that's actually boosted the way Pakistanis feel about us. So, there's got to be a big development piece of it.

SENATOR HART: Susan?

DR. RICE: Senator, this has been yet another issue where Senator Obama's judgment has been validated by reality as its unfolded. Senator Obama has been saying for well over a year, and certainly throughout his campaign, that American policy towards Pakistan is dangerously flawed. 

Congressman Smith used the phrase that we all often use, that we made the mistake of putting all of our eggs in Musharraf's basket. In other words, we had a relationship with a leader, not a relationship with the country and the people of Pakistan.

And, indeed, we had a relationship with a leader whose actions were antithetical to the interests of the people of Pakistan. And that set us further apart from achieving our objective of a secure and democratic and prosperous Pakistan that's cooperating with us effectively against violent extremists, and is providing for its people

So, Senator Obama's approach has been to say, we need to be on the side of the people of Pakistan and support democratic forces. And when this Administration, and indeed, many in this Presidential campaign process heard that, they balked, and they said no. Musharraf is the only thing between the United States and disaster.

Well, in the subsequent months, we saw the unraveling of that approach, and the consequences of our failure to be out in front, in support of democratic forces. And now, as Congressman Smith said, we're at a dangerous point.

But Senator Obama has also joined with Senator Biden and Senator Lugar in introducing very important legislation that would recast our relationship, and align the United States, for the first time, in a sustained way, with the people of Pakistan. He has -- this legislation would provide over a multi-year period, several billion dollars in development assistance and support to the people of Pakistan, particularly focused on the most dangerous and volatile areas inside of Pakistan. It gets back to what we've been talking about all afternoon -- all morning, it feel like afternoon.

DR. RICE: In darkness, here.

But also, another important component of that approach is to recognize that our military assistance to Pakistan needs to be related to whether or not Pakistan is taking concerted action to root out the extremists that threaten, first and foremost, the people in the government of Pakistan, but Afghanistan and us and Europe and others. And, to date, there hasn't been that close alignment between the assistance we provide on the military side, and the cooperation and effort that is invested on the Pakistani side. And so that equation needs to change.

And so here again, Senator Obama and Senator Biden are in the same place, and on the cutting edge of a critically important issue.

SENATOR HART: We want to talk, finally, of the theater, about Russia and Georgia, obviously. But we have microphones here, microphones here. After we have a discussion about Russia and Georgia -- both immediately and long-term -- queue up if you have questions. Your host at NVI, Ken Wallock, has asked me to remind you -- or to inform you -- that this entire session is being aired on C-SPAN, we'll get to the ground rules of the questions.

Thoughts on the current situation in the caucuses? 

DR. LAKE: Let me just make a few points on this.

First of all, what has happened in the violation of the territorial integrity of George is an extremely serious matter, and provides a very dangerous precedent for the world. And we are looking at the immediate consequences for the people of Georgia, for a very sensitive region, for the security of other states in the area, especially in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, and others -- where we should look at the broader precedent here, as well, because this is not Kosovo. Kosovo came after the international community was deeply involved, and reflected something close to an international consensus, that what had happened in Kosovo was wrong. This is a unilateral action that presents a possible precedent for other states to act unilaterally in the same way, that would be extremely dangerous around the world.

Second, one of the reasons why I believe, and Michael McFall who advises us on these issues has made this point very well, is the Russians felt that they had so little to lose in taking this action, is for 8 years, we have failed to develop the relationships with the Russians on -- in negotiations on arms control, nuclear proliferation, many issues -- that we were even carrying out during the depth of the Cold War. So, we needed those relationships. And to have argued weeks ago, that we should have thrown Russia out of the G-8 would have been a profound mistake, because it would have created one less relationship that, in fact, was at stake for the Russians. 

Gary, I think you'll agree with that, because you know so much about this issue.

So, what do we do about it? And this is going to be a very tough issue, but I was very impressed by President Sarkoze -- I saw reported, at least in summary today -- and that was that we need to look at this not so much as how do we punish Russia, although there should be a price paid for an action like this -- but should look at this more in terms of the Russians face a choice now, in their actions of whether they go back, as Senator Obama has repeatedly called for, and he's been warning about this since last April, whether they go back -- not just to the status quo ante before August 8th -- but in trying to help resolve this problem with international monitors, international peacekeepers, et cetera, et cetera. Do they want to take that course? And then, not pay a price in further isolation, and they seem to be making decisions to isolate themselves, in saying that they don't want to be -- pursue their membership in the WTO, et cetera. Or will they further isolate themselves -- not just damage to their own economy -- but in their capacity to join with us in all of the common problems that we've been talking about in this panel.

We have interests at stake, here, because we need to work with the Russians on Iran, we need to work with the Russians on the safety of nuclear materials, et cetera, and let us all hope that the Russians choose -- like the Iranians in a different context -- the path of deeper engagement, rather than the path of self-isolation.

SENATOR HART: Richard?

DR. DANZIG: I just want, very briefly, because we want to get to questions to underscore, connect together several things.

We talked earlier about this "we/they" inclination, to demonize. We talked about then tendency to invest in personalities. Look how -- the similarity between the discussion we just had about Pakistan and Tony's comments about Russia?

With Pakistan, we have an inclination to create Musharraf as the be all and end all. And at one in the same time, while he is imprisoning Chief Justice Chadry of the Supreme Court, and putting under house arrest the other members of the Supreme Court, our Ambassador there is praising him. This has huge negative effects on the street, and the like, and those have been commented on in the context of the Pakistani discussion.

Now comes in the discussion of the Russian situation, an example where we had President Bush personalizing, again, "Here's Putin, I've looked into his eyes, I've seen his soul." This creation of an idealized version, and then the tendency to turn around, and not follow through with meaningful work that establishes a meaningful set of relationships with Russian society, and then the swing to the other end, which is a kind of a demonization without an ability to actually make it meaningful in terms of the consequences.

SENATOR HART: Susan?

DR. RICE: Greg, go ahead.

MR. CRAIG: Very quick.

DR. RICE: We were going to say the same thing.

MR. CRAIG: I was going to say, this is going to feed into the political campaign, and is going to be very interesting. The first thing to be said is, this is an enormous failure of the Bush Administration diplomacy, and it should be recognized as such.

What is interesting to me is that this enormous failure of President Bush's diplomacy and relationship with Russia should translate into a benefit for Senator McCain on the political campaign, is unthinkable. Because Senator McCain endorsed the approach that President Bush has been taking.

Secondly, the way in which these two candidates have responded to this crisis showed the American people how these two people will function as President, and the choice between them is very stark, and very different.

Senator McCain was bellicose, he was unilateralist, his response what rhetorical, where Senator Obama was more thoughtful, he listened to experts, and came out with a series of statements that I think you will recognize as being the kind of response that the United States should be -- this is a problem that the United States, acting alone, cannot resolve. It has to work with the Europeans and those other nations that care about this. And without that kind of cooperation, without being on the same page, it's much less likely to be reversed. It's a necessary quotient to the solution that Senator McCain does not have in his DNA, and that Senator Obama does.

DR. RICE: I just want to take one minute to say that Senator Obama and Senator Biden have also been extremely strong -- not only in condemning Russia's aggression against democratic Georgia -- but in being sure that the United States will stand by Georgia, not just in the short term with immediate humanitarian assistance, but it made a very specific and concrete commitment of a billion dollars in reconstruction assistance to Georgia, and will be in a position to implement that when the time comes.

This is a critically important step, because we have to convey not only that aggression cannot be tolerated, that we stand with democratic partners, but as Tony said, to convey a strong message to Russia and the rest of the region, that the United States and indeed, the international community, will not tolerate aggression, that there will be consequences, and that this kind of behavior is not the sort that is commensurate with the climate and the requirements of the 21st Century.

SENATOR HART: Two weeks before the conflict, Senator Hagel and I created a Commission -- a bipartisan Commission -- including three former U.S. Ambassadors to Russia, to try to achieve what Tony Lake has suggested, and this is looking at ways to improve the relationship, not only in Russia's interests, but in ours. And hopefully that -- we will have the results of that Commission and its deliberations by the time the next Administration takes office.

I will sound just a tiny note of dissent -- the situation there comes out of at least 100 years, if not two or three hundred years, of ethnic nationalism, and a lot of complex issues. So, for some of us, this is -- by the way, the American flag, not the Russian flag --

SENATOR HART: But for some of us, we understand that it is not a simple black and white situation.

Now, we'll take as many questions as we can in 17 minutes. Which means that, we'll start here, but it means we can't have speeches. Please identify yourself. If you want to direct the question -- underscore question -- to a particular manner of the panel, please do so. Otherwise, the questions will go to the entire panel, and we're going to move as quickly as we can.

MR. GATES: Thank you, I'm Mike Gates, I'm a British member of Parliament, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

I would like to, first of all, say I found Susan Rice's remarks about no return to a Cold War very important, and the statements made about lack of bellicose rhetoric, I think, are very welcome. And I agree, Senator Hart, that Russia is a complex issue, and we need to be measured in the way we deal with it.

But there's a conflict between what we want Russia to do to help us in the Middle East, in Iran, and with the issue of nuclear weapons and the statements made about supporting Georgia, or potentially widening the membership of NATO. How is the U.S. going to resolve those conflicts?

SENATOR HART: Tony?

DR. LAKE: I think in many ways we do it in an approach very similar to our approach to China, which we have not mentioned, and which I believe, in fact, an Obama Administration would be ready, similar on this issue, as I think Richard, you were saying, with the current, with the approach of the current Administration. 

And that is that we take a look at what our interests are, and emphasize our mutual interests in the kinds of issues that you have been talking about, and try not to prejudice them, while at the same time making it clear that Russia will be isolating itself, if it continues with this behavior in this crisis, from the international community on a lot of other issues.

And that will be sorted out, I believe, with our allies and the rest of the international community.

DR. RICE: I was going to say, we have demonstrated in other contexts that we can be forceful and consistent in upholding our commitment to democracy and human rights in this, and other, contexts. Even as we have to live with realities that we may regret on a daily basis.

DR. LAKE: And so, as I was saying with China, and the rule of law, which is very much at stake here, and so as I was saying, as with China -- there are areas where we disagree with China -- Tibet, Darfur, other places. And I'm glad to mention the word "Darfur" and the genocide there, because we had not mentioned it before, and at the same time, we have a tremendous community of interests with the Chinese on many other issues that we will be pursuing.

SENATOR HART: Yes?

MR. VALDIEGOS: Thank you very much, my name is Luis Valdiegos, I'm the Ambassador of Ecuador to the United States. Thank you for the opportunity of listening to a very important panel.

I thought I should say something about Latin America, we've met with your advisors, we've had an important session with them. The key word there is listen. Listen to the particularities of all of the region, and listen to the individualities. But, my principle concern here is that, when we're talking about a better and safer world, I have not heard human rights. I have not heard what the position is on the Convention of -- United States position on integrating the Convention on Human Rights for Persons with Disabilities, the issue -- and as a member of the Committee Against Torture, I would like to know the position of the United States in relations with that.

I think human rights is extremely important in this issue of getting all of the countries together for a better world -- immigration issues that have to deal with human rights are important to all of us. What can you tell us about these issues? 

SENATOR HART: Gail?

MS. SMITH: I think there's no question that that's a priority in two key ways. One, incidental, obviously in different cases, but I think the second is structural, and in terms of a return to support for international regimes. We've seen in the last Administration an abandonment of those, and I think with Senator Obama, we will see a return to those. I think in his positions -- and I will confess, I'm not an expert on the immigration issue -- but human rights has been paramount in that. And certainly in cases -- whether it be Darfur, or Zimbabwe, to mention another, Tony, in that same vein, I think he's been very strong on that, and you'll see a continuation.

And not just for reasons of the moral imperative of human rights, but also, as I think all of us have indicated, in terms of the stability and the sustainability of our security over time. Unless there is that institutional commitment to human rights, we're going to see a repeat of the kinds of crises we've talked about in places like Pakistan.

SENATOR HART: Susan?

DR. RICE: Just very briefly, I did mention human rights and I think another place where it is prominently discussed, and importantly discussed, is in the newly adopted Democratic Platform, which I commend to all of you. Unlike other platforms, perhaps, it really does try to give ample treatment to many of the themes that we have discussed today, and this is one of them.

Closing Guantanamo, renouncing torture, being faithful to our own values and international commitments is the first step, as we underscore in an international context, the importance of respect to human rights.

DR. DANZIG: There was a wonderful event yesterday that Richard did with Human Rights First, and a group of our retired military officers. What was important here is that, it is not only the right thing, it is not only un-American when we torture or deny habeas corpus or whatever, but it is deeply in our interests to do this, not least because our own troops are at risk when we behave that way with the combatants of others.

FEMALE SPEAKER: Good morning, my name is [indiscernible] I'm representing the Parliament of Afghanistan. I'd like to talk [indiscernible] but I do not believe on that. Because, yes, that's true that [indiscernible] is a big headache for everybody, of course it's a [indiscernible], but whenever they want to [indiscernible] America, they always like [indiscernible] paging problem for Afghans.

Besides that, I'm not sure that -- how you can go for safer world, when a simple dictator, military gendarme can receive a political [indiscernible] with America, and get support, military support, and also financial support for Pakistan, but not to defeat terrorism in the area, but give support and give better or safe home front there.

So, I'm just wondering about America, what do they -- the future policy of America? If they do the same way, I don't think you can go for the safer world, but America will lose more [indiscernible] and lose more resources and money, but by the end, we will have lost more Afghan civilians, and you will create terrorists [indiscernible].

So, that's not my question, but the future policy of Afghan, or I'm sorry, U.S., towards dealing with Pakistan. Again, they can't give like unconditional money without proper monitoring, because I'm sure the -- one of the gentlemen said, please give me one minute -- like so that, we believe in development work in Pakistan, yes, but what about [indiscernible] which is totally deprived or excluded from development work, and just keep, as a very extreme place, that's why they can easily --

SENATOR HART: Question? What is the question.

FEMALE SPEAKER: So that's why I'm worried about the future policy of America [indiscernible] fight against terrorism, or they might change [indiscernible] to save, to go for the safer world.

DR. DANZIG: It was a little hard to hear some of what you were saying, but I think the thrust of it, if I'm hearing it right is, are we going to be concerned about Pakistan simply in terms of terrorism, or do we recognize other dimensions to this relationship? And if that is the right interpretation of the question, I think it's extremely important that we invest in other dimensions of the relationship.

Indeed, the starting point in some respects, is to say, what this Administration has done repeatedly, and what I think Senator McCain would continue, is to say very forcefully what they think U.S. interests are, and then to attempt, either by threats or by payments or by strong leaning on the Pakistanis to get them to conform to that.

And what we need to do, I think, instead is to say at the outset to the key Pakistani groups -- the Pakistani People's Party, the Muslim League, and the Army and others -- what is Pakistan's interest? What do Pakistani key actors see as the important things in the world, and find the degree of overlap between our own thinking about that, and Pakistani views, and also to encourage them, within Pakistani civil society, the evolution of the democracy there, in ways that serve our interests, and Pakistan's.

SENATOR HART: Gail?

MS. SMITH: I would just add one thing to that, because this struck me during the earlier discussion about Pakistan.

I think in sharp contrast to the Bush Administration and Senator McCain's campaign, I think what an Obama Administration would do is operate in real time, and for the long-term, at the same time. In other words, there are real and immediate threats and challenges in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, but there is also an imperative to start doing what the panel talked about -- which is to lay the foundations for a relationship with the people of Pakistan for building institutions in Pakistan, so that over time, where there are challenges to meet or common objectives to pursue, we are not reliant on single individuals, or leaders, but we have a more structured, fundamental relationship.

So, I think it's going to take both of those things, and I think in sharp contrast to what we've seen over the last 8 years, part of what an Obama Administration will be about is laying the foundation to do that, so that we reduce our independence on individuals, and build relationships with countries and their people.

SENATOR HART: When I do this, it means "ask a question"? 

SENATOR GRASSLEY: My name is Senator Jerry Grassley from Canada, and old friend of Senator Gary Hart. 

I want to say to you, Senator, that we in Canada read your materials very carefully, and quite frankly when I heard that you were supporting Mr. Obama, it gave me some sustenance to look at supporting his candidacy, as well. So, thank you very much. You're followed very carefully in Canada, and I'm just delighted to see you here.

My question is --

SENATOR HART: You can continue to speak.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: There's too many colleagues here, and I won't take your time.

A very short question, because quite frankly, you're interested here -- most of us who are interested in foreign affairs are interested not in generalities, but in specifics. And we've heard a lot of generalities about building a better and safer world, and so on, we're interested in specifics.

In Canada, for instance, I think we're very interested in the difference between the Obama approach to NATO, and Senator McCain's approach to NATO. 

I, personally, am interested in another question, which you don't have to answer is, when you ask about multilateralism, how do you intend to enlist other nations in your indirect approach to fighting terrorism?

SENATOR HART: Good question.

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: I'll, if I could hit that last one.

I think the indirect approach to fighting terrorism has to be collaborative, and cooperative, it's its very nature. It starts -- first of all, it starts with the parts of the world that you're trying to help, and it starts by listening to them, instead of going in and assuming that you know what's best. The only way, you know, to truly build alliances is to listen to and understand the places where you are working, and that's what they did very successfully in the Philippines is to work locally.

But, as far as the bigger question, bringing in our allies, one of the things that frustrates me is I look at our struggle against violent extremism, and then the, I think, equally important struggle against global poverty and development. There are so many players in that. So many people who want to help. There's private sector groups -- many, many groups who don't care, it was represented here earlier -- but many others, but also so many countries, like Canada, like the European Union and others. We need to work cooperatively to coordinate those resources, so we get more out of what's being spent.

There's been a lot of talk about we need to double the foreign aid budget, and we'll fight those financing battles. I just want to use the resources that we've actually got right now, better, and at the top of the list is cooperate. So, we're not duplicating efforts, so that we're learning from each other, and we've got to work cooperatively with our allies if we're going to do that, because they are spending an enormous amount of resources on this problem, as well, and I do think the U.S. should take a leadership role in that, but it's got to be cooperative.

SENATOR HART: Quickly.

MR. LAKE: Thirty seconds. Brevity suggests how important this issue is, we haven't talked about it enough, and that goes directly to your question and it is, the fact is that the most important debate going on in the world today on this issue is not here in the United States, it's in -- within the Muslim world. And we have to stop doing what we've been doing, which is to try to make them love us, and understand that it is a debate among them, and figure out how most effectively to support the moderate -- the huge, overwhelming majority of Muslims who support moderation, and are opposed to terrorism, and I hope our political campaign does not suggest a different view.

MS. DELU: My name is Patricia Delu, I'm a member of parliament from South Africa. It's very exciting to be here, [indiscernible] and I'm also glad to hear all of the positive changes.

Part of my question has been answered by Dr. Susan Rice, because I was concerned about the threat of America to the independence of the judiciary, you know, being investigated, charged, prosecuted and I'm glad to hear Guantanamo Bay is going to be closed up.

My question is that the arms trade in the world, especially developed countries sell arms to developing countries that they can hardly afford. What will America do to influence the sale of arms to developing countries, where we need the money to eradicate poverty and not [indiscernible] with expensive arms? What will be Senator Obama's policy on this, to cut down the number of arms floating around in our world?

SENATOR HART: Richard?

DR. DANZIG: Just very briefly, I think the point you raised is an extremely important one. What we're seeing is an intensity in the increase in the arms race -- or arms sales. One of the things that is disturbing about Russian activities in recent time, is the degree to which their exports as a robust economy -- they haven't been robust. Russia was, in 2006, about I think the 88th ranked economy in the world. Their arms trade became an increasingly important part of their export activities, and rises to about $7.5 billion a year.

In general, we need to try and reduce the trade in this regard, and move all countries back towards a less dependence -- both for economic reasons, and for their own national security reasons -- to try to press this form of commerce.

The other part of it is the degree to which we're out in front in doing things like Senator Obama has said, creating educational funds, providing other sources of assistance, developing trade relationships in ways that diminish the propensity to arms investments.

Arms investments are, ultimately, a symptom - - but also as your question implies, they risk in some circumstances being a cause, and we ought to try to walk the world back from that.

I might add that, though we don't have that at nuclear weaponry, we're at large, and we see a world with nuclear weapons, as well, and we see things like the AQ-CON network, we see the extraordinary importance of starting in this regard to walk back from nuclear weaponry, and avoiding situations like that in Iran, where it looks as though there's a risk that we may be encouraging proliferation in these worst of all potential kinds of weapons.

SENATOR HART: We only have time for one quick question right here.

MR. GROSSMAN: My question is -- my name is Stanley Grossman, I'm in Democrats Abroad in London. Democrats Abroad has members in more than 100 countries around the world, they're at the front line against the increased anti-Americanism that has been fostered by 7.5 years of George Bush.

And my question is, very quickly, what will President Obama do from November 5th to January 20th, to travel around and improve the image -- just appearing in places, and showing that he actually cares -- will make a huge difference.

And before you answer that question, I have someone here next to me from Northwest Pakistan who is very anxious to say something. So, I'd rather defer to him, I've made my point and --

SENATOR HART: We'll have response, and they we have to close it off.

DR. RICE: Senator Obama -- when he is President Obama -- will undertake a series of actions, including travel, including outreach to many, many of the countries around the world in which we've had damaged and frayed relationships.

He's talked, for instance, about in the early days of his Administration, convening a high-level meeting or summit with leaders from the Islamic world, as one element of that kind of outreach.

But you asked about during the transition period, and I think all of us would agree that we have one President of the United States at a time. And whether or not the President-elect would agree with the sitting President or not on a particular issue, it's not helpful, and indeed it sows confusion, to have a President-elect act in fashion that imitates a sitting President, so we would be very careful about that in the transition period.

SENATOR HART: We wish to thank all of you, and I hope that you will not think me chauvinistic to say what you have heard in the last two hours is the very best thinking on foreign policy in this country.

Please join me in thanking our panel.