Kerryís Senate Record, Speeches Reflect Candidateís Foreign Policy Stance by John Shaw There is no way of knowing, of course, what kind of foreign policy Sen. John Kerry would pursue if he is elected president of the United States on Nov. 2. Unforeseen events and challenges could have a profound effect on his foreign policy, as they have had for President George W. Bush during the past four years. But analysts agree that there are some ways to make an educated guess about what kind of foreign policy Kerry would advance as president. Kerry has spoken about foreign policy a great deal during his run for the White House and has outlined an ambitious foreign policy agenda in campaign speeches, especially in a series of speeches he gave this spring and summer. Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, published a book this fall, "Our Plan for America," that begins with several chapters on security policy. Additionally, Kerry would bring to the White House a two-decade Senate record that is packed with votes that show his basic view of international affairs and his stance on important issues. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Kerry has substantial experience in foreign policy. "I would describe John Kerry as a mainstream Democrat on foreign policy issues. Heís well informed and intelligent and very interested in foreign policy. I wouldnít call him especially innovative or creative, but he has been a contributing member of our committee," Lugar said. "Running for president as the leader of a party as large and fractured as the Democratic Party, heís had to adjust some issues in his campaign," Lugar added. "For example, in the Senate, John has been a free trader, but on the campaign trail, I gather he seems to have altered that position some." John Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and now president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Kerryís approach to foreign policy might resemble that of former President Bill Clinton. "Kerry is likely to be surrounded by former Clinton administration operatives. That suggests to me an administration environment that is more dynamic, but also more chaotic. And Kerry would likely confront a more aggressive and hostile Congress than has President Bush," Hamre said. Michael OíHanlon, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, argued that Kerry would be an engaged and interested foreign policy president. "If elected, he would bring, for lack of better word, a wonky approach to foreign policy. He would be a diplomatís president or a scholarís president. He would bring in regional experts and probe issues carefully with them. Heís a very good listener and would defer to specialists in their areas of expertise," OíHanlon said. "I think Kerry would deal with each issue on its own merits, taking into account its full complexity," OíHanlon continued. "He wouldnít bring an overarching theme or ideology to each problem. So he would have a China policy based on his informed take on China and an Indian policy based on his sense of India. He wouldnít start out with a foreign policy and then try to make every problem fit within this design." A senior European diplomat who did not want to be identified said Kerryís broad vision of international affairs, especially his focus on multilateral cooperation, is compelling to many European governments and probably other nations as well. "I think most Europeans welcome the multilateral reflex that seems to be coming from the Kerry camp. If Kerry were to be elected, there are high expectations that the U.S. would move in a more multilateral direction, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also regarding the International Criminal Court, the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty and the Kyoto protocol," he said. Kerryís Vision The central theme of Kerryís foreign policy speeches is that the United States, by working more closely with the nationís traditional allies and those sympathetic with its basic goals, would be safer and more secure than it is now. "Today there is a powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again. An America that is respected, not just feared," Kerry said. "Our vision is a nation strong at home and respected in the worldÖ. We believe that we must never hesitate to defend our people, but that we can only be truly safe if we lead the world in a way that rallies support and commands respect." Kerry argues that the Bush administration has badly bungled the war on terror. "They rushed to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bullied when they should have persuaded. They acted alone when they should have assembled a team. They hoped for the best when they should have prepared for the worst," he said. Kerry believes that U.S. national security policy confronts three great challenges: winning the global war on terror, halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and promoting democracy, development and freedom. To meet these challenges, he advocates for a new security policy guided by four imperatives. According to Kerry, the United States must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post-9/11 world; modernize the military; deploy the full U.S. arsenal, including diplomacy, intelligence, economic power and values; and lessen the countryís dependence on Mideast oil. Kerry contends that despite Bushís strong rhetoric, his policies against terrorism have been ineffective. "He still has no comprehensive strategy for victory. After allowing [Osama] bin Laden to escape from our grasp at Tora Bora, he diverted critical resources from the effort to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight the war in Iraq. And his doctrine of unilateral pre-emption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations," Kerry said. The Democratic presidential challenger argues that winning the war against terrorism requires a broader political coalition than has been assembled so far. "We need to recognize that the path to victory in the war on terror will be found in the company of others, not walking aloneÖ. Victory in the war on terror requires a combination of American determination and international cooperation." In specific terms, Kerry said the war on terrorism requires a strong homeland security program and vastly improved intelligence and law enforcement capabilities. He supports creating a "true" director of national intelligence who would restructure the intelligence community around threats such as weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Regarding homeland security, Kerry said the United States needs better intelligence, more secure borders, hardened targets, improved domestic readiness and new measures to safeguard civil liberties. Kerry said tougher and smarter steps should be taken to cut off terrorist funding and prevent Afghanistan and other nations from becoming terrorist havens, all of which entails devising a more aggressive and creative approach to public diplomacy. Fighting the war on terrorism and meeting other security challenges requires a much different U.S. military, Kerry argues, adding that U.S. forces must be stronger, faster and better armed. To accomplish this, Kerry said he would expand active duty personnel by 40,000, increase the military police force, and double the Armyís special forces. During the presidential campaign, Kerry has also emphasized the importance of halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction. "There is no greater threat to American security than the possibility that a terrorist could acquire a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon. Preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must be our number-one security goal," he said. Kerry argues that the United States should lead the global effort to lock up and secure existing weapons of mass destruction and the material to manufacture more. He places a special emphasis on securing and reducing existing nuclear weapons and material: "The first step is to safeguard all bomb-making material worldwideÖ. There is enough nuclear material to make literally thousands of nuclear weapons stored in inadequately protected sights all around the world." In addition, he said the United States should end the production of new fissile material for nuclear weapons and lead international efforts to shut down nuclear programs in North, Korea, Iran and elsewhere. A Kerry administration would work toward negotiating a comprehensive agreement with North Korea that would "completely, irreversibly and verifiably end North Koreaís nuclear weapons program." Kerry said he would join Americaís European colleagues to offer Iran a simple dealóto supply Tehran with the nuclear fuel it needs for peaceful energy purposes and recapture any spent fuel so it cannot be redirected into a weapons program. He would offer any country a deal like the one proposed for Iran: nuclear fuel in exchange for an agreement to shut down enrichment and preprocessing facilities. The United States, Kerry added, should enhance international efforts to stop trafficking in nuclear materials and must make the prevention of nuclear terrorism a top national security priority. The third overriding goal of Kerryís security policy would be to promote what he calls democracy, development and freedom. This, he said, begins with an energetic and creative effort to win the peace in Iraq. "We know that people disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq. But this much is certainóthe administration badly exaggerated its case, badly mishandled the responsibility to secure international support, and badly mismanaged the planning for peace," Kerry declared. "They clearly misrepresented the connection between Saddamís government and al Qaedaóand stubbornly cling to their story despite contrary evidence." Kerry said the United States must take immediate measures to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. This means the U.S. government and its allies must create a stable security environment, fully internationalize the non-Iraqi security force and reconstruction team, persuade NATO to deploy troops, and work with allies to forgive Iraqís debt. Kerry argues that a U.S. administration must be personally engaged in forging peace in the Middle East, saying that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is key. So far, however, he has not provided any specifics about how this would be done. On another front, Kerry said his administration would do all that it could to help Africa. He describes the AIDS/HIV pandemic as a stunning human tragedy and also "a security risk of the highest order that threatens to plunge nations into chaos." He pledges that his administration would confront global health challenges, doubling government funding to $30 billion to fight AIDS/HIV and tuberculosis by 2008. Kerry said his administration would seek to repair the Atlantic partnership, which he believes has been badly damaged by the Bush administration. He would also engage with the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, citing a need to create a new community of the Americas. Kerry also advocates a reduction in the dependence on Mideast oil to bolster American security, noting that the United States consumes 2.5 million barrels a day from the Middle East. To accomplish this, Kerry would pursue three avenues: explore and develop new energy sources, improve energy efficiency and reliability, and diversify and reduce prices for current energy sources. "Given that 65 percent of the worldís oil reserves are from the Middle East," he said, "America will never be able to drill our way to energy independence." Kerryís Record Kerry was elected to the Senate in 1984 and has been a long-time member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Having cast more than 6,000 votes over two decades, Kerry has a complex record. Known for carefully weighing, even agonizing, over votes, Kerry has never been seen as rigidly ideological. Although he voted against the first Gulf War in 1991, Kerry has voted to support the use of force in almost every instance since Vietnam: Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2002. Kerry later voted against the $87 billion spending package for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, working instead with Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on an alternative plan that would have paid for the $87 billion by scaling back the tax cut given to high-income individuals in the 2001 tax bill. Their amendment was rejected by the Senate. In the 1990s, Kerry joined many Democrats and some Republicans in supporting efforts to take funds from defense and shift them into domestic programs. Most analysts agree that Kerry does not have a substantial legislative legacy, but he has been active and effective in several high-profile investigations. For example in the mid-1980s, he helped investigate allegations of misuse of private aid, gun running, and drug smuggling by the Nicaraguan contra rebels. In 1986, Kerry issued a report that outlined possible illegal Reagan administration ties to the contras as well as alleged corruption and human rights abuses. In the late 1980s, Kerry chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations as it probed charges of drug smuggling and corruption against Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega. And in 1991 to 1992, he chaired the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. After a 15-month probe working with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), he concluded there was no compelling evidence that U.S. soldiers were alive in Vietnam. Kerry has demonstrated a serious interest in terrorism. In 1997, he wrote the book "The New War: The Web of Crime That Threatens Americaís Security." It focused mainly on money laundering and the international drug trade. Kerry voted for all four of the major trade liberalization laws in the past dozen years. He supported bills to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement, establish the World Trade Organization, grant permanent normal trade relations to China, and give the president fast-track trade authority. Kerry is widely viewed on Capitol Hill as smart, ambitious, tough-minded and intellectually curious. He has, analysts agree, a Clinton-like penchant to probe issues deeply. Not seen as especially decisive, Kerry also has a tendency to rethink issues and reassess policies. Said OíHanlon of the Brookings Institution: "Sometimes I think he gets into more nuance than is necessary or helpful on the campaign trail." John Shaw is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.