Hillary Clinton

1. What is your general view of the role of international law in U.S. foreign policy?
   
   It is critical to our security and our standing in the world that the United States once again lead the world in promoting and advancing international law. Contrary to what many in the current administration appear to believe, international law and international institutions are tools that help us to promote and advance our interests and values, not traps that limit American power. When international institutions work well, they leverage our resources and legitimize the use of power.
   
   Engagement is the best way to ensure that the international system reflects our interests, values, and objectives, a point well understood by previous Republican and Democratic presidents alike for decades. When I am president, the United States will once again engage, not disparage, the international system so that it reflects the principles an earlier generation of Americans enshrined in the UN Charter.

---




2. Please provide an example of how this general view might play out in a specific policy context?
   
   America's historical support for human rights and the need to reassert U.S. leadership in this area is an important example of the importance of international law in our foreign policy. The United States was instrumental in creating the system of international human rights. Eleanor Roosevelt led the U.S. delegation that drafted the International Declaration of Human Rights. The United States had been a leader in using that system to promote these aspirations.
   
   The Bush administration's approach has been to evade our responsibilities to the detriment both of our moral leadership, and to the detriment of the international norms we have been building for over 60 years. As president, I will put a stop to that because it is the right thing to do, and because promotion of human rights is an important element in restoring our standing in the world. And it is my belief that systems that respect human rights reduce the appeal of violent extremism.

3. What priorities or goals would you establish for the development of existing or new international legal regimes?
   
   The current human rights system is not working as well as it must. We need to have a structure at the United Nations that is strong and principled in advancing human rights. The Human Rights Council was established to address the weaknesses of the Human Rights Commission as part of a broader set of UN reforms. So far, the Council has not fulfilled the promise of reform. The Bush approach of standing aside and not engaging to improve the Human Rights Council has only made the job of reform more difficult. As President, I will make reform of the human rights system a priority of the United States.
   
   

   ---

4. What priorities would you set for Senate advice and consent on treaties currently lacking U.S. ratification?
   
   As President, I will build bipartisan support to secure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is a critical non-proliferation tool. I have said I would seek Senate approval in 2009, the tenth year of the Senate's initial rejection of the treaty. U.S. adherence to the agreement is especially important as the United States seeks to regain its leadership position on nonproliferation in order to shore up the nonproliferation treaty and prevent a new wave of nuclear proliferation.
   
   As President, I will also seek Senate approval of the CEDAW treaty, the most authoritative UN negotiated treaty to protect women around the world from discrimination. The United States signed this agreement in 1980. It is past time that we became a party to this convention, and I will make approval a Senate priority.

5. What would be your administration's international trade policy?
   
   Globalization is a reality we cannot ignore. Twenty-five percent of our GDP is derived from international trade. Millions of American jobs are linked to trade.
   
   I believe in smart trade. Trade has to work for America, for working Americans. The Bush administration's failure to enforce our trade agreements is contributing factor in our ballooning trade deficit, which has weakened our economic position around the world. The smart trade policy I would pursue as President will promote labor and environmental provisions so that our workers are not caught in a race to the bottom, and that the standard of living of people everywhere is elevated. A smart trade policy will also help create good jobs here in America not reward companies for taking them overseas.
   
   I will double the enforcement staff at the U.S. Trade Representative and I will appoint a trade enforcement officer. I will also review every trade deal periodically so that we know whether it is delivering what we bargained for. Trade has been good for America, but not everyone is benefiting equally. I will expand Trade Adjustment Assistance to ensure that displaced workers get the support they need. I will also extend Trade Adjustment Assistance eligibility to service workers, extend eligibility to workers whose jobs have moved overseas to countries like India and China with which we do not have free trade agreements, and double the program's training budget. I will also increase the Health Coverage Tax Credit subsidy to 90% from 65% to ensure that displaced workers can afford health insurance.

---




6. Would you seek any modification of existing trade agreements?
   
   In the Senate, I introduced legislation that would require an assessment of trade agreements every five years to see if they are meeting their goals or if they need adjustments. When I am President, I will be vigilant on NAFTA and other agreements and will instruct the U.S. Trade Representative to take action when necessary.

---




7. What would be your approach to the WTO and future global trade talks?
   
   Trade has to elevate the standard of living of workers in America and abroad - it cannot simply be a race to the bottom. Moreover, trade agreements also have to be enforced so that they actually deliver the promised benefits. This applies to both bilateral and multilateral agreements. The U.S. Trade Representative's monitoring and enforcement staff is stretched thin. As President, I will double the size of the enforcement staff, and I will appoint a trade enforcement officer to ensure that all parties honor the agreements we sign. It is in part because our agreements have not been enforced, and because workers have seen so small a share of the benefits of trade, that trade's reputation is in need of rehabilitation. That is why I have proposed to significantly expand Trade Adjustment Assistance, extend coverage to service workers, and increase the Health Coverage Tax Credit so that displaced workers can continue to receive decent health coverage.

8. What should be the U.S. policy toward the ICC?
   
   There is broad support in this country across political and ideological divides that perpetrators of genocide, mass atrocities, and war crimes must be held accountable. When President Clinton signed the Rome Treaty in December 2000, he noted our serious concerns about the treaty. But he signed, nonetheless, to underline this basic principle, and to signal that the United States would seek to address the concerns we had about the treaty, as well as to ensure that the institution operated as effectively as possible. The Bush administration's "unsigning" of the ICC not only damaged our international standing, it also separated us from our allies, with whom we have a shared interest in promoting accountability for war crimes and atrocities.
   
   Fortunately, some of the worst fears about the ICC have not been borne out. The institution was created to prompt the development of justice institutions in countries that lacked them, and to assure accountability for the worst human rights crimes in countries where those institutions do not exist. It has operated on that basis. The ICC has also avoided politicized prosecutions.
   
   The Bush administration has begun to cooperate with the ICC in allowing referral of indicted war criminals in Darfur to the Court, and signaling a willingness to share information with the Court about those prosecutions.
   
   Consistent with my overall policy of reintroducing the United States to the world, I will as President evaluate the record of the Court, and reassess how we can best engage with this institution and hold the worst abusers of human rights to account.

9. What would be your strategy for shoring up the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime and regulation of other weapons of mass destruction?
   
   The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, is one of the greatest national security threats the United States faces today, and there remains a dangerous gap between the urgency of the threat and the scope and pace of our nation's response. To meet this challenge, the United States must reassert global leadership in shoring up the nonproliferation regime and combating the threat of the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
   
   In the Senate, I have introduced the Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Act to accelerate and reinvigorate U.S. efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism. My legislation would devote real resources to combating the threat by increasing funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative to convert research reactors around the world from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium and to remove the highly enriched uranium from such facilities.
   
   As president, I will do everything in my power to ensure that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and the materials needed to make them are kept out of the wrong hands. My first goal would be to remove all nuclear material from the world's most vulnerable nuclear sites and effectively secure the remainder during my first term in office. As President, I will support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Establishing an international fuel bank that guaranteed secure access to nuclear fuel at reasonable prices would help limit the number of countries that pose proliferation risks.

10. What policies would you have toward global climate change regulation?
    
    Addressing climate change represents a powerful economic opportunity that can be a driver of growth, jobs, and competitive advantage in the twenty-first century. As president, I will make the fight against global warming a priority. We cannot solve the climate crisis alone, and the rest of the world cannot solve it without us. In my administration, the United States will reengage in international climate change negotiations and provide the leadership needed to reach a binding global climate agreement post Kyoto. But we must first restore our own credibility on the issue. Demonstrating a serious commitment to reducing our own emissions through a market-based cap-and-trade approach is the first essential step. We must also demonstrate our commitment to combating climate change by putting domestic constraints on greenhouse gas emissions and by stepping up America's investments in a clean energy future. To that end, I have endorsed proposals to reduce U.S. emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.
    
    We must also help developing nations build efficient and environmentally sustainable domestic energy infrastructures. Two-thirds of the growth in energy demand over the next 25 years will come from countries with little existing infrastructure.
    
    Finally, we must create formal links between the International Energy Agency and China and India and create an "E-8" international forum modeled on the G-8. This group would be comprised of the world's major carbon-emitting nations and hold an annual summit devoted to international ecological and resource issues.

11. What are your views regarding the role of international law and institutions in shaping international efforts to combat terrorism?
    
    International cooperation is essential to combating terrorism. So much of what the current administration has done impedes that cooperation. That cooperation needs to be based on shared goals, shared intelligence, and cooperation in law enforcement. It must also be based on a sense of shared values, including a commitment to well-established principles of international law, most of which the United States was central in developing.
    
    Compliance particularly with human rights standards in our counterterrorism efforts serves to enhance the ability and likelihood that allies can cooperate with us. The Bush administration's policy of sending US agents to abduct individuals from the territory of allied states, who are then transported to secret prisons or sent to third countries where they have been mistreated and even tortured, has created a serious rift with our allies, and decreased the ability of allies facing widespread public protest to cooperate with us.

---




12. In this context, do you see a need to amend or modify the laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions?
    
    I believe very strongly and have said unequivocally that torture cannot be American policy. Period. As President, I will not continue this Administration's policy. I believe this is one of the most important issues we face, because nothing is more damaging to our standing in the world than when we fail to live up to the standards that we have embraced and promoted around the world.
    
    I believe we have to stand for the rule of law before the world, especially when we are under threat. In the process of accomplishing what is essential for our security, we must hold onto our values and set an example we can point to with pride and not shame. Accordingly, Common Article 3 - which prohibits "cruel treatment or torture," "outrages against human dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment" - is a standard we must follow.
    
    There is no need to degrade the humane treatments standards of the Geneva Conventions which protect our own men and women in uniform, and which have been incorporated in the US Army Field Manual on intelligence interrogations.
    
    The fight against terrorism incorporates military, diplomatic, and criminal enforcement tools. The Geneva Conventions are suitable to govern the conduct of armed conflict. Where there are gaps in the broader fight against terrorism, I will work with the Congress and closely coordinate with our allies to ensure that we have laws and standards that both enable us to deal effectively with the terrorist threat, while recognizing that our values are an asset in that fight.

---




13. What views do you have regarding any legal constraints on U.S. use of force?
    
    As President I will never hesitate to use force to protect Americans or to defend our territory and our vital interests. The Bush Administration has presented the American people with a series of false choices: force versus diplomacy, unilateralism versus multilateralism, and hard power versus soft. Seeing these choices as mutually exclusive alternatives reflects an ideologically blinkered vision of the world that denies America the tools and the flexibility necessary to lead and succeed. There is a time for force and a time for diplomacy; when properly deployed the two can reinforce each other. U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy.

---




14. What are your views of the doctrine of pre-emptive use of force?
    
    The Bush Administration's unilateral decision to rush to a preventive war in Iraq without allowing the inspectors to finish their work or waiting for diplomacy to run its course has led to a catalogue of miscalculations, misjudgments, and mistakes that have done serious damage to our security and our standing.
    
    As I said in 2002 on the Senate floor, I do not support a new doctrine of pre-emption, one that pursues unilateralism when it is not necessary. Doing so is counterproductive to our interests and to our goals. The espousal by the Bush administration of unilateralism, isolationism, and overtly expressed pre-emptive defense as a central national security strategy does nothing to enhance our security, and can only be counterproductive to our interests and to our goals. It reflects a foreign policy driven by ideology, which has deprived our nation of the tools we need to defend ourselves and advance our interests. In truth, preemption is not a new idea. It is, in fact, a very old idea and, understood properly, is intrinsic to the idea of self defense.
    
    As President, I would not hesitate to act to protect our country and our interests if I had information that required us to act. But that is very different from the practice of this administration, which has rejected a 60-year tradition of bipartisan global leadership rooted in a preference for cooperation over unilateralism, for exhausting diplomacy before making war, and for converting old adversaries into allies rather than making new enemies. And we are now paying a heavy price as a result.