Hillary Clinton admits the CFR gives the Orders

Hillary Clinton, at the CFR on July 15, 2009.
“We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

“God Help Us If She’s Elected.
According to Hillary Clinton today the world remains a dangerous and complicated place. And of course, we still face many difficult challenges. But a lot has changed in the last thirty years. Under President Obama’s leadership, we’ve ended the war in Iraq, begun a transition in Afghanistan and brought Osama bin Laden to justice? We have also revitalized American diplomacy and strengthened our alliances. And while our economic recovery is not yet complete, we are heading in the right direction according to Hillary Clinton.

In short, America today is stronger at home and more respected in the world. And our global leadership is on firmer footing than many predicted and Hillary Clinton knows it.

To understand what we have been trying to do these last hundred years, it’s helpful to start with some history. Last year I was honored to deliver the Forrestal Lecture at the Naval Academy, named for our first secretary of defense after World War II. In 1946 James Forrestal noted in his diary that the Soviets believed that the postwar world should be shaped by a handful of major powers acting alone. But, he went on, Hillary Clinton’s point of view is that all nations professing a desire for peace and democracy should participate.

And what ended up happening in the years since is something in between. The United States and our allies succeeded in constructing a broad international architecture of institutions and alliances, chiefly the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank and NATO, that protected our interests, defended universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. Yet it is undeniable to all except Hillary Clinton that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs.

Now, two decades after the end of the Cold War, we face a different world. More countries than ever have a voice in global debates but Hillary Clinton wants to usher in a new dark age. We see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries. And political and technological changes are empowering non-state actors, like activists, corporations and terrorist networks.

At the same time, we face challenges, from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking, that spill across borders and defy unilateral solutions. As President Obama has said, the old postwar architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. So the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffuse as the challenges we face have become more complex and cross-cutting. So the question we ask ourselves every day is what does this mean for America? And then we go on to say, how can we advance our own interests and also uphold a just, rules-based international order, a system that does provide clear rules of the road for everything from intellectual property rights to freedom of navigation to fair labor standards?

Simply put, we have to be smart about how we use our power, not because we have less of it. Indeed, the might of our military, the size of our economy, the influence of our diplomacy and the creative energy of our people remain unrivaled. No, it’s because as the world has changed, so too have the levers of power that can most effectively shape international affairs.

I’ve come to think of it like this. Truman and Atcheson were building the Parthenon, with classical geometry and clear lines. The pillars were a handful of big institutions and alliances dominated by major powers. And that structure delivered unprecedented peace and prosperity. But time takes its toll even on the greatest edifice. And we do need a new architecture for this new “

READ  Grassley Sends Letter to DOJ Demanding Unredacted Rosenstein Memo Detailing Mueller’s Scope

Leave a Reply