The United States needs a new realism in its foreign policy if it is to meet the challenges of this changed world. Such a new realism must harbor no illusions about the importance of a strong military in a dangerous world, but it must also understand the importance of diplomacy and multilateral cooperation in a world in which what goes on inside of one country has profound impacts on other countries.

Anew realist foreign policy will require that the United States alter its present course in several ways. First and foremost, the U.S. must repair its alliances. The United States cannot lead other nations toward solutions to shared problems if these other nations do not trust U.S. leadership. U.S. policymakers need to restore respect and appreciation for U.S. allies and for shared democratic values in order to coordinate international efforts for global problems.

U.S. leaders also must restore their commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation, which means many things. It means promoting expansion of the UN Security Council’s permanent membership to include Japan, India, Germany, and one country each from Africa and Latin America. It also means ethical reform at the United Nations, so that this vital institution can help its many underdeveloped and destitute member states meet the challenges of the 21st century. Finally, it means expanding the G8 to include economic giants like India and China.

Beyond the United Nations, a commitment to interna¬tional law means that the United States must be impeccable in its own human rights behavior. The U.S. government must join the International Criminal Court and respect all interna¬tional treaties, including the Geneva Conventions. It should reward countries that respect the Universal Declaration on Human Rights—and it should negotiate, constructively but firmly, with those who do not. The United States must also start taking human rights in Africa seriously. The two most horrendous recent human rights abuses have taken place in Rwanda and now Darfur, and history teaches that if the United States does not take the lead on ending these abuses, no one else will. The U.S. should have sent a special envoy as soon as the mass killings began in Darfur, and should now put pressure not only Sudan, but also on other states, like China, that have influence in Sudan. U.S. diplomatic engage¬ment and leadership is essential to put global, multilateral pressure on such regimes. One way of doing so would be to enthusiastically support the International Criminal Court, so that individual leaders who engage in or allow crimes against humanity know they will be held accountable.

On environmental issues, the United States must be the leader, not the laggard, in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, embracing the Kyoto protocol on global warming and then going well beyond it, leading the world with a man-on-the-moon effort to improve energy efficiency and to commercialize clean, alternative technologies. In order to lead, the United States should set an example for other countries, especially China and India, and cut fossil fuel consumption dramatically to work for a sustainable energy future. As the leading greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. has a special responsibility to set and meet ambitious emission caps and alternative energy goals, to develop new technologies, and to promote those technologies in the developing world. Climate agreements must include tough and enforceable emission commitments from both developed and develop¬ing countries, as well as financial incentives and technology transfer assistance for developing countries.

Here’s my plan: We need to remove all of our troops, as quickly as possible.
We have to end this war now. The one thing the Iraqis agree on is that they want us to leave. Our troops have done everything we’ve asked of them and I don’t want to see any more of them die. Congress needs to stand up to this President and get all of our troops out of Iraq. All of them. With no residual forces whatsoever.
We must remove the troops quickly and safely. We have moved over 240,000 troops in and out of Iraq through Kuwait recently in three-month time periods. After the first Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a second route out through Turkey.

As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will stop seeing us as occupiers, and start seeing us as brokers. Iraq’s neighbors will have to face the reality that if they don’t help stabilize the country, they will face the consequences of Iraq’s collapse – including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war with their neighbors. —we can keep forces in nearby countries, such as Kuwait or Turkey, to ensure stability in the region.

We need to hold a Reconciliation Conference between the Iraqi ethnic and religious groups. To secure the region we need to work with neighboring countries like Iran and Syria. I would leave troops in neighboring countries that want us to help keep the peace. But we need to hand over security of Iraq to an all Muslim peacekeeping force.

There is a way out—but it starts by standing up to this President and de-authorizing this war. If Congress can’t do that, then as President—I will end this war on my first day in office.

I would ensure that the mission is related to America’s national security, and I would ensure that we had an exit strategy before we go in.

Here are my top three national security issues:

Number one: withdrawing all of our forces from Iraq, and doing so immediately. For reasons that I stated above, this is the only truly responsible course of action, despite the “received wisdom” from inside-the-Beltway that wrongly believes a slow, deliberate, drawdown over the course of many years—with tens of thousands of residual troops—would be the best course of action. This is simply not true.

Additionally, with our forces no longer stuck in Iraq, we can redeploy some of them to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and the real terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
Number two: Global warming. The U.S. must lead the world in the fight against global warming, and the best way to lead is by example. This fight is the main reason why I’m running for President, and it will be a central element of my Presidency. That’s why I believe we need a massive, Apollo-like program for energy independence through renewables, and that’s what my energy plan will achieve.
Additionally, Sierra Club President Carl Pope said that my energy plan “raised the bar” in the fight against global warming, and is “more aggressive than anything we've seen so far from the candidates. It is also significantly better elaborated.” The League of Conservation Voters praised my proposals as the most aggressive plan of any candidate for President, saying I “set the highest goals for reducing global warming pollution and increasing production from renewable energy sources.”
Number three: nuclear terrorism. In a world in which nuclear terrorism rather than war with Russia is the main threat, reducing all nuclear arsenals—in a careful, orderly way—makes everyone safer. Moreover, negotiations to reduce our arsenal also represent our diplomatic ace-in-the-hole. We can leverage our own proposed reductions to get the other nuclear powers to do the same—and simultaneously get the non-nuclear powers to forego both weapons and nuclear fuel enrichment, and to agree to rigorous global safeguards and verification procedures.

As President I will push for enough U.N. peacekeepers to make a difference and for tough sanctions against Sudan. I’ve met with the Sudanese leaders and I know that they will respond to sanctions with teeth. China has the Olympics coming up in 2008, which gives us leverage over them as well - and they, in turn, have leverage over Sudan. I was the first candidate to call for boycotting those Olympics if China doesn’t start using its influence over Khartoum to stop the violence. Some disagree with that decision, but I believe that genocide is more important than sports.

I do not believe we should intervene militarily in Darfur; we don’t need another military involvement right now. But there’s a lot more we can do to support the international humanitarian commitment to this crisis, including providing diplomatic and logistics support to the hybrid AU-UN force that is currently being put together.

I’ve spent a lot of time in Darfur and Sudan, and I know the region well. In 1996 I negotiated the release of a New Mexican Red Cross worker and two of his colleagues. Last fall I negotiated the release of three other hostages. In January I went to Darfur with the Save Darfur Coalition and worked to secure a fragile cease-fire. The cease-fire was intended to provide a setting for dialogue so all sides could negotiate a political solution—there is no military solution.

I said at the time that while we had agreement on a cease-fire, it would be up to the UN and African Union to continue the process and keep the pressure on all sides to actually lay down their weapons. I spoke directly with the UN Envoy to Sudan and to the African Union, but unfortunately the cease-fire we negotiated did not hold. Leadership from the White House could have helped make that happen.

However, our delegation’s efforts did result in improved conditions for humanitarian workers in Darfur, and a streamlined process to get them into and out of the country. Although improving humanitarian relief-access will not address the root causes, it will improve the responses and alleviate some of the suffering.

We must act boldly and act now in order to make America a Clean Energy Nation. I am calling for a New American Revolution -- an energy and climate revolution. This includes:
• Cutting oil demand 50% by 2020. That means reducing oil imports from around 65% to 10-15%. We can do this in part by getting the 100 mile per gallon car into the marketplace. We must work to double the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, to 50 mpg by 2020. And we will set a life-cycle low-carbon fuel standard that reduces the carbon impact of our liquid fuels by 30% by 2020.
• Creating new efficiencies and energy sources in the electrical sector. I am calling for a national renewable portfolio standard of 30% by 2020 that will rise to 50% by 2040. This is aggressive, but necessary as we start using more electricity for automobiles. I will push for an energy productivity law requiring a 20% improvement in energy productivity by 2020. We could save customers $21 billion a year by 2020.
• Dramatically reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions: 20% by 2020, 80% by 2040, 90% by 2050. This is ten years faster than scientists say is necessary because we must lead the world, and we can't afford the possibility of backsliding and inaction. We will start with a market-based cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions to create incentives for the electric and industrial sectors to make significant reductions in their carbon emissions. We can afford to protect the climate. Given the risks of catastrophic climate change, we can't afford not to do it.
• Returning to the international negotiating table and support mandatory world-wide limits on global warming pollution. We will work closely with fast-growing nations. I will cooperate with the European Union, the World Bank, and other allies to help finance the incremental cost of “doing it right.” I will create a North American Energy Council with Mexico and Canada, which supply about 20% of our oil, and make sure our relations with these neighbors are firm and friendly. As we reduce our demand for foreign oil, we should work with the Persian Gulf nations, and our partners at the UN, to create a multilateral system for protecting the Persian Gulf so that within ten years, the U.S. presence there could be sharply and safely reduced.

Yes, I do support U.S. participation in binding international climate agreements. It is time for us to work with other nations, bilaterally and multilaterally, to create new treaties and agreements—stronger than Kyoto—as well as financing structures, that will change the world’s energy and climate policies as well as our own.

My administration would cooperate with all ongoing investigations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It’s that simple.

The U.S. should join the International Criminal Court as a full-fledged member. We have nothing to fear.

I am proud to support the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in their efforts to alleviate suffering and transform the developing world. Accomplishing these goals will require an enduring will and an abiding faith in the dignity of every human being. I am confident that we will be successful.

As a former UN Ambassador and a diplomat, I know that just as poverty-stricken neighborhoods produce crime, poverty-stricken states produce terrorism. Ending world poverty is thus not only a moral imperative, it is vital to the security of the United States. The specific targets of the MDGs—halting the spread of HIV/AIDS, providing universal primary education, reducing poverty, providing housing, ensuring the health of mothers and children, providing safe, clean water, and more -- are critical for the developing world and America alike. Our next President must actively support these goals at home and abroad.

We need a Marshall Plan for the 21st century. Developed nations, public organizations, and private companies must coordinate a sustained, focused, intensive effort to wipe out the developing world's most pressing problems. The original Marshall Plan lifted Europe from the ravages of war and established the United States as the dominant economic player in the world. I believe that during the coming century, our nation's economic security -- and the security of the world economy -- depends on replicating that success in the developing world.
I applaud the forces behind the MDGs for beginning the hard work that the world community must collectively finish. Only if we can work together will we have the strength to solve this problem

No. I was Energy Secretary under President Clinton. My department was responsible for the design, manufacture, and maintenance of our stockpile of nuclear weapons. These weapons are not abstractions to me: to see one of them is to be astounded that millions of deaths can be compressed into such a tiny package. To know intimately our nuclear arsenal is to know intimately how our species could destroy itself. Under my administration, we will lead the world toward the reduction of nuclear arsenals, not their augmentation.

I believe that the U.S. should work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. We know that Al Qaeda wants nuclear weapons. We know that Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan sold nuclear materials to rogue states, and we need to ensure that all of Pakistan’s nuclear material is safe and accounted for. We also know that parts of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal still are not secure, and that there are poorly-secured nuclear materials around the world. This is an existential problem. It is urgent. We need to free humanity from the threat of nuclear destruction. America cannot achieve this task alone, but it certainly cannot be done without American leadership, and this means a renewed U.S. commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty commits non-nuclear states to forego nuclear weapons, and it also commits the nuclear weapons states to the goal of nuclear disarmament. Too often, this aspect of the Treaty is forgotten. In order to get others to take the NPT seriously, we need to take it seriously ourselves. We should re-affirm our commitment to the long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament, and we should invite the Russians and others to join us in a moratorium on all new nuclear weapons. And we should negotiate further staged reductions in our arsenals, beyond what has already been agreed, over the next decade.

In a world in which nuclear terrorism rather than war with Russia is the main threat, reducing all nuclear arsenals—in a careful, orderly way—makes everyone safer. Moreover, negotiations to reduce our arsenal also represent our diplomatic ace-in-the-hole. We can leverage our own proposed reductions to get the other nuclear powers to do the same—and simultaneously get the non-nuclear powers to forego both weapons and nuclear fuel enrichment, and to agree to rigorous global safeguards and verification procedures.

There are several steps that we can take. First, we must always pay our dues to the UN and other international organizations with which we have treaty commitments. Second, we can lend our military and civilian expertise, as well as logistical capabilities, to operations as they develop. In addition, we must bolster our own military and civilian capabilities to better leverage our resources in this field.

I am very intrigued with the idea of UNEPS, and I will work closely with my senior military advisors to explore the logistical and practical issues involved in standing up this force.

We live in a global society in which it is vital that the United States take a clear stand on genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other horrors that have no place in a civilized world. Over the past several years, however, President Bush has diminished our hard power and eviscerated our soft power to influence others. We must regain both of these sources of influence, and when we do that, we will have the power once again to stand up to those who would do harm to the defenseless among us.

As I stated above, The U.S. government must join the International Criminal Court and respect all interna¬tional treaties, including the Geneva Conventions. It should reward countries that respect the Universal Declaration on Human Rights—and it should negotiate, constructively but firmly, with those who do not.

We should also ratify the U.N. convention on the Law of the Sea, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of a Child, the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and an enhanced version of the Kyoto Protocol.

The United States must live up to its own ideals. Prisoner abuse, torture, secret prisons, and evasion of the Geneva Conventions must have no place in US policy.

While I would not object to such a commission, when I am President, there will be no need for it. Torture will simply not be tolerated.

If the United States wants Muslims to be open to it, it should start by closing Guantanamo.

We must restore our commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation, and this means many things, including promoting expansion of the U.N. Security Council’s permanent membership to include Japan, India, Germany, and one country each from Africa and Latin America. It also means ethical reform at the United Nations, so that this vital institution can help its many underdeveloped and destitute member states meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Yes. My administration would absolutely support the full and timely payment of U.S. assessments to international institutions, including the United Nations.

Yes, I do.

Although I was born in the United States, I grew up in Mexico as the son of an American father and a Mexican mother until I was 13 years old. This experience taught me from a very young age of the importance of bridging the gap between cultures and countries, and of how important it is to not less miscommunication drive us apart. As President, I will take that experience and translate it into an effective foreign policy that seeks to lead through inspiration and setting good examples, not by making idle threats and alienating our allies.