John Kerry on Foreign Policy
Jr Senator (MA), Democratic nominee for President
1994: Worked with John McCain to normalize Vietnam relations
In 1993, McCain, working with Senate Democrat (and fellow Vietnam veteran) John Kerry, urged Clinton to lift US trade sanctions against Vietnam. In 1994, McCain and Kerry sponsored a resolution to lift the embargo, against the opposition of veterans'
groups and prominent Republican senators like Bob Dole and Phil Gramm. The two would continue to work with the president to accelerate the normalization of trade relations with the country.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p. 62
Mar 25, 2008
No nation will ever have a veto over us
BUSH: In our first debate Kerry proposed America pass a global test. In order to defend ourselves, we’d have to get international approval. That’s one of the major differences we have about defending our country. I’ll work with allies. I’ll work with
friends. We’ll continue to build strong coalitions. But I will never turn over our national- security decisions to leaders of other countries. We’ll be resolute, we’ll be strong, and we’ll wage a comprehensive war against the terrorists.
I have never suggested a test where we turn over our security to any nation. In fact, I’ve said the opposite: I will never turn the security of the US over to any nation. No nation will ever have a veto over us. But I think it makes sense that we ought
to pass a sort of truth standard. That’s how you gain legitimacy with your own people, and that’s how you gain legitimacy in the world. But I’ll never fail to protect the United States of America.
Source: [Xref Bush] Third Bush-Kerry Debate, in Tempe Arizona
Oct 13, 2004
The President deceived the people with this war
BUSH: My opponent talks about foreign policy. He proposed America pass a global test. In order to defend ourselves, we’d have to get international approval. That’s one of the major differences we have.
We’ll continue to build strong coalitions. But I will never turn over our national-security decisions to leaders of other countries.
The most important thing to relieve the pressure is to recognize that America is strongest when we are working with real alliances, when we are sharing the burdens of the world.
I believe the president broke faith to the American people in the way he took this nation to war. I think most Americans in their guts know, that we ought to pass a sort of truth standard.
Source: [Xref Bush] Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ
Oct 13, 2004
Missouri would be the third largest country in “coalition”
BUSH: You tell Tony Blair we’re going alone. Tell Tony Blair we’re going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we’re going alone. Tell Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland we’re going alone. We’ve got 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we’re going
alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if you say, you know, you’re going alone. And people listen. They’re sacrificing with us.
KERRY: Countries are leaving the coalition, not joining. Eight countries have left it.
If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States. That’s not a grand coalition.
Ninety percent of the casualties are American. Ninety percent of the cost is coming out of your pockets. I could do a better job. My plan does a better job. And that’s why I’ll be a better commander in chief.
Source: [Xref Bush] Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO
Oct 8, 2004
Preemptive strike must pass a global test
The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. It was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, though all of American
history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the US. But if and when you do it, you have to do it in a way that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing
what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the UN. When Pres. Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis
sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, “Here, let me show you the photos.” DeGaulle waved them off and said, “No, no, no. The word of the president of the US is good enough for me.”
Source: First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL
Sep 30, 2004
Will never take my eye off the real dangerous threats
KERRY: Iran & North Korea are now more dangerous. Whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don’t know yet. But as president, I’ll never take my eye off that ball. I’ve been fighting for proliferation the entire time-anti-proliferation the
entire time I’ve been in the Congress. And we’ve watched Bush actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table. You don’t help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure. My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn’t sign, and I think it
shows the difference of our opinion-the difference of opinions. And that is, I wouldn’t join the International Criminal Court. It’s a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.
Source: First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL
Sep 30, 2004
Bush is sending mixed messages to South Korea
BUSH: We signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans. And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us.
And China’s a got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do. As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one.
KERRY: We had inspectors and television cameras
in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power. Colin Powell announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of
working with the North Koreans. Bush reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here. And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy.
Source: [X-ref Bush] First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL
Sep 30, 2004
Want both bilateral and multinational talks with North Korea
KERRY: I want both bilateral and multinational talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.
minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That’s exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That’s what we caught
him doing. That’s where he was breaking the agreement. Secondly, Kerry said where he worked to put sanctions on Iran-we’ve already sanctioned Iran. Finally, we were a party to the convention-to working with Germany, France and Great Britain to send their
foreign ministers into Iran.
KERRY: In order for the sanctions to be effective, we should have been working with the British, French and Germans and other countries. That’s the difference between Bush and me. Again, Bush sort of slid by the question.
Source: First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL
Sep 30, 2004
Take notice of political oppression in Russia
BUSH: I look forward to discussing it more with Putin, as time goes on. Russia is a country in transition. Vladimir is going to have to make some hard choices. And I think it’s very important for the American president, as well as other Western leaders,
to remind him of the great benefits of democracy, that democracy will best help the people realize their hopes and aspirations and dreams. And I will continue working with him over the next four years.
KERRY: I’ve had an extraordinary experience of
watching up close and personal that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the transformation. I regret what’s happened in these past months. And I think it goes beyond just the response to terror. Mr. Putin now controls all the television
stations. His political opposition is being put in jail. It’s very important to the US, obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. This is a very important country to us. We want a partnership. But we always have to stand up for democracy.
Source: [X-ref Bush] First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL
Sep 30, 2004
China is involved with North Korea no matter what
BUSH: I can’t tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It’s precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It will cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It will mean that China no longer is involved in convincing, along
with us, for Kim Jong Il to get rid of his weapons. It’s a big mistake to do that. We must have China’s leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves. If you enter bilateral talks, they’ll be happy to walk away from the table. I don’t think that’ll work.
KERRY: Just because Bush says it can’t be done, that you’d lose China, doesn’t mean it can’t be done. I mean, this is Bush who said “There were weapons of mass destruction,” said “Mission accomplished,” said we could fight the war on the cheap
-none of which were true. We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too.
Source: [X-ref Bush] First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL
Sep 30, 2004
America should lead by extending a hand, not a fist
For more than a century, America has spared no effort to defend, encourage, and promote that idea around the world. Over and over, we have done it by exercising American leadership to forge powerful alliances-with longtime allies and reluctant friends,
with nations already living in the light of democracy and with peoples struggling to join them. The might of those alliances has been a driving force in the survival & success of freedom-in two World Wars, in the Cold War, in the Gulf War, and in Kosovo.
America led instead of going it alone. We extended a hand, not a fist. We respected the world - and the world respected us. Today, there is a powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again. An America that is respected, no
Source: Our Plan For America, p. 8
Aug 10, 2004
American power comes from respect, not weapons
Our leaders in WWII understood that America drew its power not only from the might of weapons, but also from the trust and respect of nations around the globe. There was a time, not so long ago, when the might of our alliances was a driving force in the
survival and success of freedom-in two World Wars, in the long years of the Cold War-then from the Gulf War to Bosnia & Kosovo. America led instead of going it alone. We extended a hand, not a fist. We respected the world-and the world respected us.
Source: Speech on Iraq and foreign policy, Seattle WA
May 27, 2004
Bush undermines generations of American leadership
More than a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt defined American leadership in foreign policy. He said America should walk softly and carry a big stick. Time and again, this Administration has violated the fundamental tenet of Roosevelt’s approach, as he
described it: “If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble.”
But that is precisely what this Administration has done. They looked to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bullied when they
should have persuaded.
They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a team. They have hoped for the best when they should have prepared for the worst. In short, they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership.
And that is what we must restore.
I’m running for president because, abroad as well as at home, it’s time to let America be America again. By doing so, we can restore our place in the world and make America safer.
Source: Speech on Iraq and foreign policy, Seattle WA
May 27, 2004
Haiti is in crisis because Bush hates Aristide
Q: What about Haiti?
KERRY: The president himself, wasn’t engaged, but his administration has been. And his administration has been engaged in a very manipulative and wrongful way. This administration set up an equation. They have a theological and an
ideological hatred for Aristide. They always have. And they approach this so that the insurgents were empowered by this administration, because they said to the insurgents, “Until you reach an agreement with Aristide and the government about sharing
power, we’re not going to provide aid and assistance.“ So we empowered them to simply veto any agreement, which is what they’re still doing with respect to a power-sharing in another government. What this president ought to have done is to have given
them an ultimatum: Either we’re going to have full democracy in the region -- notwithstanding that I think Aristide has some problems -- but our engagement should have been to try to restore the democracy, to bring those people together.
Source: Democratic 2004 primary debate at USC
Feb 26, 2004
Excluding other nations in rebuilding Iraq is dumb
Q:What about excluding France & Germany from rebuilding Iraq?
A:I can’t think of anything dumber or more insulting or more inviting to the disdain and potential failure--disdain of countries and potential failure of our policy. This policy is not about
Halliburton. It’s about Iraq. It’s about the Iraqi people. It’s about America’s role in the war on terror. What Bush is doing is actually putting America at greater risk, putting our soldiers at greater risk, and making the chances of success more remote.
Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Presidential Debate in Durham NH
Dec 9, 2003
John Kerry on Voting Record
Supports multilateral cooperative internationalism
In contrast to the dangerous mix of isolationism and unilateralism that characterizes the Republicans, [I support] speaking from a position of strength on international issues-the multilateral cooperative tradition of democratic internationalism forged
in the course of two world wars and the cold war. It acknowledges that multilateral organizations are vehicles for the promotion of our ideals and the protection of our interests around the world. And it recognizes that those ideals and interests in this
globalized world are consistent with the peace, prosperity, and self-determination of every country on earth.
Democratic internationalists understand that there are times when America must challenge the UN, NATO, and our allies
to stand up for their own preferred values. And they also realize that there are times when America must be challenged to live up to its values as well. America has taken a rare step in human history in arguing that its interests and the world’s are one.
Source: A Call to Service, by John Kerry, p. 19-20
Oct 1, 2003
Voted YES on cooperating with India as a nuclear power.
Congressional Summary:US-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act:
- Approves the US-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
- Declares that it is US policy to prevent the transfer to India of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from other participating governments in the Nuclear Suppliers Group or from any other source; and
- any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. HOWARD BERMAN (D, CA-28): Integrating India into a global nonproliferation regime is a positive step. Before anyone gets too sanctimonious about India's nuclear weapons program, we should acknowledge that the five recognized nuclear weapons states have not done nearly enough to fulfill their commitments under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, including making serious reductions in their own arsenals, nor in the case of the US in ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. BARBARA LEE (D, CA-9): In withholding my approval, I seek not to penalize the people of India but, rather, to affirm the principle of nuclear nonproliferation. Jettisoning adherence to the international nuclear nonproliferation framework that has served the world so well for more than 30 years, as approval of the agreement before us would do, is just simply unwise. It is also reckless.
Approval of this agreement undermines our efforts to dissuade countries like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. By approving this agreement, all we are doing is creating incentives for other countries to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Reference: US-India Nuclear Agreement;
; vote number 2008-S211
on Oct 1, 2008
Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe.
H.R. 3167; Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, To endorse the vision of further enlargement of the NATO Alliance. Vote to pass a bill that would support further expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, authorize military assistance to several eastern European countries and lift assistance restrictions on Slovakia.
; vote number 2002-116
on May 17, 2002
Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction.
; vote number 2000-242
on Sep 13, 2000
Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion.
Adoption of the conference report on the 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill provided $12.7 billion for foreign aid programs in 2000.
Status: Conf Rpt Agreed to Y)51; N)49
Reference: H.R. 2606 Conference Report;
Bill H.R. 2606
; vote number 1999-312
on Oct 6, 1999
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions.
To kill a proposal limiting President Clinton's ability to impose economic sanctions on foreign nations.
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)53; N)46; NV)1
Reference: Motion to table the Lugar Amdt #3156.;
Bill S. 2159
; vote number 1998-201
on Jul 15, 1998
Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech.
This amendment would have limited NATO Expansion to only include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
Status: Amdt Rejected Y)41; N)59
Reference: NATO Expansion limit-Warner Amdt. #2322;
Bill NATO Expansion Treaty #105-36
; vote number 1998-112
on Apr 30, 1998
Voted YES on $17.9 billion to IMF.
Would provide $17.9 billion for the International Monetary Fund.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)84; N)16
Reference: McConnell Amdt #2100;
Bill S. 1768
; vote number 1998-44
on Mar 26, 1998
Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.
Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.
Status: Conf Rpt Agreed to Y)74; N)22; NV)4
Reference: Conference Report on H.R. 927;
Bill H.R. 927
; vote number 1996-22
on Mar 5, 1996
Voted YES on ending Vietnam embargo.
Ending U.S. trade embargos on the country of Vietnam.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)62; N)38
Reference: For. Reltns. Auth. Act FY 94 & 95;
Bill S. 1281
; vote number 1994-5
on Jan 27, 1994
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence.
Kerry signed the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Build a Public Consensus Supporting US Global Leadership
The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to “America First” isolationism.
Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.
A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for US global leadership. Yet the US continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force
structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The US must speed up the “revolution in military affairs” that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare.
Goals for 2010
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC12 on Aug 1, 2000
- A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues US global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
- A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts.
Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine.
Kerry co-sponsored the Hunger to Harvest bill:
In an effort to reduce hunger in sub-Saharan Africa, urges the President to:
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HCR102 on Apr 4, 2001
- set forth five-year and ten-year strategies to achieve a reversal of current levels of hunger and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, including a commitment to contribute an appropriate U.S. share of increased bilateral and multilateral poverty-focused resources for sub-Saharan Africa, with an emphasis on health (including HIV-AIDS prevention and treatment), education, agriculture, private sector and free market development, democratic institutions and the rule of law, micro-finance development, and debt relief;
- work with the heads of other donor countries and sub-Saharan African countries and with private and voluntary organizations and other civic organizations to implement such strategies; and calls for
- Congress to undertake a multi-year commitment to provide the resources to implement those strategies; and
- the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to report on such implementation.
Monitor human rights in Uganda-Sudan crisis.
Kerry sponsored the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act
Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should: Became Public Law No: 108-283.
Source: Bill sponsored by 9 Senators 04-S2264 on Mar 31, 2004
- support efforts for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in northern and eastern Uganda;
- work with the Government of Uganda and the international community to make available sufficient resources to meet the relief and development needs of the towns and cities that are supporting large numbers of displaced people;
- urge the leaders and members of the Lord's Resistance Army to stop the abduction of children, and urge all armed forces in Uganda to stop the use of child soldiers, and seek the release of all individuals who have been abducted;
- urge the Government of Uganda to improve the professionalism of Ugandan military personnel currently stationed in northern and eastern Uganda, with an emphasis on respect for human rights and civilian protection;
- work with the international community to assist and increase the capacity of Ugandan civil institutions to monitor the human rights situation in northern Uganda;
- make clear that the relationship between Sudan and the United States cannot improve unless no credible evidence indicates that authorities of the Government of Sudan are providing support to the Lord's Resistance Army.
Impose sanctions and an import ban on Burma.
Kerry co-sponsored imposing sanctions and an import ban on Burma
A bill to impose sanctions on officials of the State Peace and Development Council in Burma, to prohibit the importation of gemstones and hardwoods from Burma, & to promote a coordinated international effort to restore civilian democratic rule to Burma.
(The two Senate versions currently differ in wording). The Saffron Revolution Support Act states that it is U.S. policy to:
Directs the President to submit to the appropriate congressional committees a list of:
- support the democratic aspirations of Burma's people;
- condemn the repression carried out by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC); and
- hold accountable individuals responsible for the repression of peaceful political activity in Burma.
- SPDC officials who play or have played a substantial role in political repression in Burma or in the commission of human rights abuses;
- Subjects persons so identified to U.S. entry prohibition and financial sanctions.
- Amends the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to prohibit the importation into the US of Burmese gems, teak, or other hardwood timber.
- Prohibits any U.S. person or corporation from investing in Burma.
Introductory statement by Sponsor:
Sen. McCAIN. The world has reacted with horror and revulsion at the Burmese junta's recent brutal crackdown against peaceful demonstrators. In crushing the Saffron Revolution, killing hundreds and jailing thousands, including countless Buddhist monks, the junta has left no doubt about its blatant disregard for basic human decency. We, as Americans, stand on the side of freedom, not fear; of peace, not violence; and of the millions in Burma who aspire to a better life, not those who would keep them isolated and oppressed. Our response must go beyond statements of condemnation, and the time to act is now. This legislation imposes meaningful and effective punitive action against the cruel, thuggish, and illegitimate Burmese government.
Source: Burma Democracy Promotion Act (S.2257 & S.2172) 07-S2257 on Oct 29, 2007
Remove African National Congress from terrorist list.
Kerry introduced removing African National Congress from terrorist list
A bill to exempt the African National Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization. [The ANC is now the ruling party of South Africa; as head of the ANC, Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years by the apartheid government before becoming President of South Africa].
Source: S.2979 08-S2979 on May 6, 2008
- For purposes of alien inadmissibility based upon terrorist-related grounds the African National Congress (ANC) shall not be considered to be a terrorist organization on the basis of any act or event that occurred before the date of enactment of such Act.
- Expresses the sense of Congress to exempt the anti-apartheid activities of aliens who are current or former officials of the government of the Republic of South Africa.
- Legislative Outcome: Related bill: H.R.5690; became Public Law 110-257 on 7/1/2008
Implement Darfur Peace Agreement with UN peacekeeping force.
Kerry co-sponsored implementing Darfur Peace Agreement with UN peacekeeping force
A resolution calling for peace in Darfur.
Source: S.RES.455 08-SR455 on Feb 14, 2008
- Calls upon the government of Sudan and other signatories and non-signatories to the May 5, 2006, Darfur Peace Agreement to cease hostilities.
- Calls upon the government of Sudan to facilitate the deployment of the United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force, including any non-African peacekeepers.
- Urges all invited individuals and movements to attend the next round of peace negotiations without preconditions.
- Condemns: (1) intimidation or threats against camp or civil society leaders to discourage them from attending the peace talks; and (2) actions by any party that undermines the Darfur peace process.
- Calls upon all parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to support all terms of the agreement.
- Legislative Outcome: Resolution agreed to in Senate, by Unanimous Consent.
Condemns Russia for provocative statements to Georgia.
Kerry co-sponsored condemning Russia for provocative statements to Georgia
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding provocative and dangerous statements made by the Government of the Russian Federation that undermine the territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia.
Legislative Outcome: Related bills: H.RES.1166 & S.RES.418; Agreed to by Senate; Passed/agreed to in House, by recorded vote: 390-23 (Roll no. 269).
Source: Resolution on South Ossetia (S. RES. 550) 08-SR550 on May 2, 2008
- Whereas, since 1993, the territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia has been reaffirmed by the international community and 32 UN Security Council resolutions;
- Whereas the Government of the Republic of Georgia has pursued with good faith the peaceful resolution of territorial conflicts in the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia since the end of hostilities in 1993;
- Whereas, for several years, the Government of Russia has engaged in an ongoing process of usurping the sovereignty of Georgia in Abkhazia and South Ossetia by awarding subsidies, the right to vote in elections in Russia, and Russian passports to people living in those regions;
Whereas the announcement of the Government of the Russian Federation that it will establish 'official ties' with the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and further involve itself in aspects of their government appears to be a thinly veiled attempt at annexation;
- Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Congress condemns recent decisions made by the Government of the Russian Federation to establish 'official ties' with the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia;
- Calls upon the Government of the Russian Federation to disavow this policy, which gives the appearance of being motivated by an appetite for annexation;
- affirms that the restoration of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia is in the interest of all who seek peace and stability in the region.
Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide of the early 1900s.
Kerry co-sponsored acknowledging the Armenian Genocide of the early 1900s
Sen. DURBIN: The definition of "genocide" is "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." Scholars agree that what the Armenian people suffered in 1915 to 1917 fits the definition of genocide. To date, 19 countries and 37 US states recognize the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is wrong. It is evil. It is evil whether its victims are Armenians, Sudanese, Rwandan Tutsis, Cambodians or European Jews. Not to acknowledge genocide for what it is denigrates the memory of its victims. Recognition of genocide is part of the healing process. Official recognition will reaffirm our tradition of protecting the vulnerable and inspire us to not stand by and watch as genocide occurs in our time.
Source: Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.RES.106/H.RES.106) 2007-SR106 on Mar 14, 2007
- WHEREAS the Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, and which succeeded in the elimination of more than 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland;
- WHEREAS, on May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers issued the joint statement of England, France, and Russia that explicitly charged, for the first time ever, another government of committing "a crime against humanity";
- WHEREAS, despite the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, the failure of the domestic and international authorities to punish those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is a reason why similar genocides have recurred and may recur in the future, and that a just resolution will help prevent future genocides:
- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Senate calls on the President, in the
President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide, to accurately characterize the systematic annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of US intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.
Develop a strategy to protect civilians in Darfur.
Kerry co-sponsored developing a strategy to protect civilians in Darfur
A resolution calling on the United States Government and the international community to promptly develop, fund, and implement a comprehensive regional strategy in Africa to protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian operations, contain and reduce violence, and contribute to conditions for sustainable peace in eastern Chad, northern Central African Republic, and Darfur, Sudan.
Source: Darfur Resolution (S.RES.76) 2007-SR76 on Feb 8, 2007
Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy.
Kerry sponsored sanctioning Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the political situation in Zimbabwe. Expresses the sense of the Senate:
Source: S.RES.533&H.RES.1230 2008-SR533 on Apr 24, 2008
- supporting the people of Zimbabwe;
- that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission should immediately release the legitimate results of the presidential election and ratify the previously announced results of the parliamentary elections;
- that President Robert Mugabe should accept the will of the people of Zimbabwe in order to effect a timely and peaceful transition to democratic rule;
- that the U.S. government and the international community should impose targeted sanctions against individuals in the government of
Zimbabwe and state security services and militias who are responsible for human rights abuses and election interference;
- that the U.S. government and the international community should work together to prepare an economic and political recovery package for Zimbabwe;
- that regional organizations should play an active role in resolving the crisis; and
- that the U.N. Security Council should support efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution of the crisis and impose an international arms embargo on Zimbabwe until a legitimate democratic government has taken power.
Page last updated: Feb 08, 2010