U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
Commencement
Address
University of Southern California Law School
May
18, 2003
USC
Webcast of Senator Feinstein's Address
Thank you very much, Dean
Spitzer and Jenna (Jenkins) and Rebecca (Furman) for your leadership in
the school and what I suspect will be a leadership role in your community
in the future. And all you graduates out there: don't make it too difficult
to collect that $21,000 for scholarships. This is the first time I've
ever seen it done - so I hope it's successful.
In preparing these remarks,
I tried to keep in mind something that I heard once. Probably, many graduates
here today don't know that much about Hubert Humphrey. But in my mind
he was a great U.S. Senator; he was also Vice President of United States.
One day he was about to give
a speech and his wife Muriel said: "Hubert, just remember you don't have
to be eternal to be immortal." So I am going to try to say what I have
to say in a relatively short period of time.
Forty years ago, President
John F. Kennedy delivered a commencement address at American University.
In that speech he spoke about a "strategy for peace."
At that time the world was
symmetrically divided between the Soviet and the American camps. Both
sides had nuclear missiles targeted at the other in a kind of nuclear
standoff.
Well, with the disappearance
of the Berlin Wall and demise of the Soviet Union those two camps broke
apart. Many people may think: "Well it is a safer world today." But we
now face asymmetric threats that are not contained by geography or political
borders. We no longer fear the threat of an all-out nuclear war. Yet the
likelihood of a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack has increased.
But President Kennedy's remarks
still warrant careful reflection as we continue this global war on terror.
"What kind of peace do
we seek?" he asked that day.
"Not a Pax Americana enforced
on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or
the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind
of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables
men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their
children - not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women
- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."
Now, in my decade in the Senate,
I don't believe our world has faced a more precarious time than we face
today in the global war on terror. So these words stated so eloquently
by our 35th President should be recalled and considered.
At other times, I might have
chosen to challenge you on a more personal level, urging each and every
one of you to "make a difference" in the world - to put your divot back.
Or, I might have tried to introduce some levity with a bad lawyer's joke
of which there are many, I might tell you.
Or, perhaps I might have used
a popular song, as I did at the Stanford commencement - my alma mater
in 1993 when I quoted that great country singer, Garth Brooks, and challenged
the graduates: "To chance the rapids and dance the tides."
Well, today I am not going
to give that kind of speech because September 11th has changed
everything. The world today is a different place. And the wounds that
9/11 left on Americans have created massive scar tissue in the American
psyche which has enabled us to think and do what we would not have previously
even contemplated.
And given the extraordinary
moment in which we are all living I feel compelled to share with you my
concerns about American foreign policy and national security.
In the aftermath of September
11th we demonstrated clearly and forcefully that the United
States will avenge any attack on our soil. We have shown that those who
were killed at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon and in a field
in western Pennsylvania will not have died in vain.
And in Iraq, the United States
has moved forcefully to rid the world of a heinous dictator who posed
a serious threat to peace and security in the Middle East.
But now it is imperative that the United States restores its relationship with the world. It is imperative that we work closely with our long-term allies and international institutions to knit a world peace that can not happen through the actions of the United States alone.
To my mind, of all the myriad
challenges facing the United States, none is greater than national security.
In the wake of 9/11, the White House has articulated a new, and in many
ways, revolutionary approach to U.S. foreign policy.
So different in fact, that
a couple of weeks ago, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright told
those of us in the Democratic Caucus of the Senate: that in all of American
history there has never been a greater difference in American foreign
policy and national security than between the Clinton Administration and
this Bush Administration. Indeed, I believe that our country now stands
at a decisive crossroad. And I stand before you today, to express my concern
about the future.
I think President Bush is
right when he says that the greatest threat facing the United States lies
in the global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist
access to those weapons.
But, by adopting a policy
of unilateralism and preemption, by moving away from international institutions,
by increasing U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons, the Administration may
actually encourage the proliferation we seek to prevent and continue to
lose both friends and allies of long standing.
After 9/11, there was an immediate
show of support for the United States by the rest of the world. The French
newspaper Le Monde printed a headline "We are all Americans now."
But the United States has lost much of this good will since then. Both in the way the Administration has approached the war in Iraq and because of a growing perception that this Administration's attitude is one that America always know best, doesn't listen to her allies and is perceived by others as increasingly arrogant.
This unilateral approach and
strategy stands in sharp contrast to a successful bipartisan tradition
born out of World War II - a tradition of supporting a world ordered by
law, with capable international institutions and reciprocal restraints
on action. In the long run, I deeply believe that this new strategy will
undermine U.S. security and will make the world a more dangerous rather
than a safer place. And today, I want to share with you my concerns about
major changes taking place in foreign policy and national security.
In 2002, right after 9/11,
the Administration released a series of policy documents and strategies.
One of them was called the Nuclear Posture Review. Despite subsequent
efforts to downplay the document's significance, it represents, in my
view, the beginning of a new era of nuclear contemplation and the possible
use of nuclear weapons in the future.
This policy document posits
that certain events might compel the United States to use nuclear weapons
first, and even against non-nuclear states and it dangerously blurs the
line between the use of conventional and nuclear weapons.
News reports on the Nuclear
Posture Review specifically discuss situations in which the United State
would engage in a first use of nuclear weapons. These include "a North
Korean attack on South Korea, or a military confrontation over the status
of Taiwan."
It addresses contingencies
in which the United States might use nuclear weapons - not in retaliation
for a nuclear strike on the United States, but to destroy enemy stocks
of chemical or biological weapons. And it calls for the development of
a new generation of U.S. nuclear warheads, including low-yield or so called
"mini-nukes."
This past Wednesday, at a
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee meeting, I asked Secretary
of Defense Rumsfeld about the Administration's request for funds for a
study of the development of something called the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator, a low-yield nuclear weapon.
He said, in essence, that
it is just a study and did not mean the Administration planned to develop
or deploy these weapons. But the President's Congressional allies have
added $15 million for research and testing of this nuclear bunker buster
to the 2004 Defense Authorization bill which will be on the floor of the
United States Senate tomorrow.
This bill would also repeal
a 10-year-old prohibition on research and development of low yield nuclear
weapons. This, too will be on the floor of the Senate this week. And some
of us will try to repeal the repeal.
The bill would also authorize
$6 million for research of other advanced nuclear concepts and $25 million
to resume, if necessary, the nuclear testing program.
And it would lessen the time
it would take to prepare to conduct a nuclear test from three years to
18 months. The United States has not conducted a nuclear test since 1992,
and such testing is actually barred by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
which the United States signed in 1996.
Where I am going with all
of this? Where I am going is that what we are seeing is a quiet, but major
shift in American policy. We see all these pieces, a study here, research
and feasibility there, a resumption of testing. But when you connect the
dots, a very disturbing picture begins to appear.
Wheels are beginning to turn to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. We do not know how these issues will play out on the floor of the House and the Senate. But the likelihood is that they will be approved.
The development of low-yield
nuclear weapons offers the United States, I believe, no decisive military
advantage, but it has potentially grave international repercussions.
Does anybody believe that
if the United States were to develop such weapons, other countries would
not follow? Would that make the world safer? I think not.
In fact, this Administration
seems to be moving toward a military posture in which nuclear weapons
are considered just like other weapons. Their purpose is not simply to
serve as a deterrent. But they would be a usable instrument of military
power, like a tank, a fighter aircraft, or a cruise missile.
At the same time, the Nuclear
Posture Review expands the countries cited as possible targets. Mentioning
that "North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are among the countries
that could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies."
Now, I would not defend any
of these regimes. But with the exception of North Korea, none are nuclear
powers. These contingencies really point to a first use of nuclear weapons
against a non-nuclear state. Previous administrations of both political
parties, when faced with an uncertain world, have made ambiguous public
statements about the United States reserving the right to consider all
options without any specificity as to which option, or under what conditions.
This ambiguity has served
this nation in good stand. But today, two new policy initiatives together
cite contingencies for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons or the use
of nuclear weapons in retaliation to a non-nuclear attack. In this day
and age, a first use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, by our
country should be unthinkable. And responding to a non-nuclear attack
with nuclear weapons, not only violates a central tenet of just war and
United States military tradition; it is simply unacceptable.
Indeed, at a time when the
United States brands as evil certain countries based in part on their
pursuit of nuclear arms or weapons of mass destruction, we must be careful
as we consider our own options and contingencies regarding nuclear weapons.
The United States has the
finest volunteer professional military in the world and the most sophisticated
weapon systems in the world. So sophisticated that a missile launched
from a destroyer or a cruiser 900 to 1,000 miles away can strike a single
story in a building and do no damage to the rest of that building. This
should enable us to meet any challenge.
In his commencement address
at West Point in June of 2002, the President called upon all Americans
and I quote: "to be forward looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive
action when necessary to defend our liberty and defend our lives. If we
wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
And this theme was further developed in the National Security Strategy, published in September of last year, which argues that "the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past..."
It goes on to say: "We cannot
let out enemies strike first, the greater the threat, the greater the
risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory
action to defend ourselves."
Now, I agree with these statements.
I believe that as a tactical matter, there may be situations where the
United States may have to strike first against an imminent threat. However,
by creating a specific presumption strategy, and by adapting the concept
of imminent threat to threats not fully formed or to cases where one day
a foreign government may be a threat to the United States, we set an example
for others which may well come back to haunt us and I believe will lead
to a less stable and a more dangerous world.
Now, why am I telling all
of you this? I am saying it because we are at a kind of crossroad. And
the question has to be - will the United States recommit our nation to
the achievement of workable democratic structures for international law
and international institutions and norms of behavior and conduct that
others are willing to accept?
Or will we turn away from
the successful bipartisan tradition of supporting a world ordered by law
and instead pursue a unilateralist and a preemptive path?
I deeply believe that the
United States is heading into unchartered territory without adequate reflection
or consultation with Congress and our allies. So it's time to raise the
warning flags. And I begin to raise these flags here today in hopes that
you bright, young, potential lawyers will join me in speaking out against
renewed nuclear activity in whatever form it may take.
As we set a future course
for this nation, we should remember that the hallmark of America's national
security flows from who we are, not just what our military can do. Our
strength emanates from our moral stature and our belief in truth, justice
and in freedom.
If the long term goal of our
foreign policy is to help build a world where we have more allies than
adversaries, more friends than enemies, and more prosperity than poverty,
a doctrine of unilateral preemptive military action when combined with
renewed nuclear development, will most certainly work against that goal.
The voices of reason and restraint can still prevail. And what happens, I believe, over the next several weeks and months could well define how this great nation is perceived for generations to come.
So this is a sober address
for a bright, young law school class. And I hope as you go into the world,
as you raise your families, as you put your divot back into your community,
as you become articulate and moral attorneys for a given cause, that you
will also realize that this great nation needs your guidance.
It needs your participation,
because the thing about a democracy is that no one can take it for granted.
The bricks of a democracy are not only cement and mortar, but they need
constant tending by an informed electorate. So, go out there be great
lawyers; care about your community, put that divot back, and "chance the
rapids and dance the tides."
Thank you very much.