Joe Biden on Foreign Policy
Vice President; previously Democratic Senator (DE)
An internationalist as Foreign Relations Committee chair
After the collapse of Biden's 1988 presidential campaign, Biden reinvented himself again, this time as the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, an internationalist who voiced skepticism about, but didn't oppose, the Iraq invasion.
He was on everybody's short list for secretary of state and even re-entered the presidential ring in 2008.
The race rebranded him as an avuncular liberal with an incongruous skill set: a blue-collar populist and jet-setting foreign policy wise man rolled into one gabby package.
But he hadn't been a serious contender for the presidency since '88, and he tallied less than 1% of the Iowa Caucus vote in '08 before calling it quits on Jan. 3.
Source: Politico Mag profile, "Joe Biden in Winter"
, Mar 1, 2014
OpEd: called Cheney "dangerous" but Biden followed his model
Biden played an activist role on foreign affairs, taking on the Iraq portfolio and waging a series of pitched--though ultimately losing--battles with Clinton and Gates, Obama's Republican holdover defense secretary, over the war in Afghanistan and other
uses of force. Biden had publicly described Cheney's strong hand in national security decisions as "dangerous," but he embraced his predecessor's activist role by insisting on attending most top-level war planning meetings. In his Biden-flaying memoir,
"Duty," Gates advised Biden to follow the example of George H.W. Bush, who as Reagan's V.P. had shared his opinions mostly in private with his boss. That approach "more befitted the dignity of the office," Gates writes, but Biden "listened closely,
thanked me, then did the opposite of what I recommended, following the Cheney model to a T."
Biden says, "the president encouraged me to challenge assumptions. I have as much experience as Gates, and that's one reason [Obama] asked me to do this job."
Source: Politico Mag profile, "Joe Biden in Winter"
, Mar 1, 2014
Iraq's lesson: Be cautious on declaring Syrian WMDs
Q: Sen. John McCain has criticized the administration's foreign policy for not being tough enough, for issuing veiled threats, at best, and being overly cautious. Now that we know Syria is using chemical weapons on its own people, how does that change
the administration's approach?
A: I disagree with the basic premise. When we came into office, there were two wars raging: one without any sense of how to end it and the other without any sense of how to manage it; Al Qaeda was on the ascendancy; all
of that has changed. But with regard to Syria: we don't want to blow it like the last administration did in Iraq, saying "weapons of mass destruction." We know that there have been traces found of what are probably chemical weapons. The president is
likely to use a proportional response in terms of meaningful action [inclusive internationally and within Syria]. The one lesson we learned from Iraq and the last administration is, in managing the affairs in Iraq, they destroyed every institution.
Source: Douglas Brinkley in Rolling Stone Magazine
, May 9, 2013
Jewish state of Israel is only way to ensure "Never Again"
My education started at my father's dinner table. My father was what you would have called a righteous Christian. It was at that table I first heard the phrase, "Never again." It was at that table that I learned that the only way to ensure that it could
never happen again was the establishment and the existence of a secure, Jewish state of Israel.
I remember my father, a Christian, being baffled at the debate taking place at the end of World War II talking about whether or not to establish the
State of Israel. My father would say, were he a Jew, he would never, never entrust the security of his people to any individual nation, no matter how good and how noble it was, like the United States.
President Obama shares my commitment. We both know that Israel faces new threats, new pressures and uncertainty. The threats to Israel's existence continue, but they have changed as the world and the region have changed over the last decade.
Source: Speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference
, Mar 4, 2013
Arab Spring changed Mideast; commitment to Israel unchanged
The Arab Spring, at once full of both hope and uncertainty, has required Israel--and the United States--to reassess old and settled relationships. Iran's dangerous nuclear weapons program, and its continued support of terrorist organizations, like
Hezbollah and Hamas, not only endanger Israel, but endanger the world.
All these pressures put enormous pressure on the State of Israel. We understand that. And we especially understand that if we make a mistake, it's not a threat to our existence.
But if Israel makes a mistake, it could be a threat to its very existence. And that's why, from the moment the President took office, he has acted swiftly and decisively to make clear to the whole world and to Israel that even as circumstances have
changed, one thing has not: our deep commitment to the security of the state of Israel. That has not changed. That will not change as long as I and he are President and Vice President. It's in our naked self-interest, beyond the moral imperative.
Source: Speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference
, Mar 4, 2013
China's growth & stability depends on US Pacific presence
I spent 10 days together with Vice President Xi of China. And we both acknowledged that the most dangerous thing is a misunderstanding. The only conflict worse than one that is intended, as my father would say, was one that's unintended. For example, I
referred to the China Sea. I pointed out it's not China's sea; it's international waters. It's a matter of laying out clearly what the parameters of the relationship are and those of the neighbors.
If we do our job correctly and we interface directly
with the leadership, there will be intense competition, there will be occasional misunderstandings, but our children will not be looking at China as a sworn enemy. I do not believe that's in the cards. I believe there is healthy competition from a
growing, emerging China, which I would argue is in the interest of all of us. One of the reasons China has been able to have this period of sustained growth and stability is because of a US presence in the Pacific, not in spite of.
Source: Speech at the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany
, Feb 12, 2013
Open dialogue means no military conflict with China
Q: On China--how concerned are you about the conflicts brewing in the Pacific? What are the administration's plans to make sure that this will develop into a constructive partnership and not into a kind of new Cold War confrontation?
A: I am confident that it's in the interests of China and the emerging Chinese leadership that it not result in conflict. The last thing that they need at this moment is to engage in anything remotely approaching military competition with the US.
I do not believe that is their intention. It clearly is not our intention. The most important thing to assure that this not occur is to have a frank, straightforward, private dialogue with the emerging leadership in China, letting them know what our
interests are, letting them know what we believe our role is, and let them make judgments about whether or not that in any way conflicts with their growth patterns or their ability to maintain their own national security interest.
Source: Speech at the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany
, Feb 10, 2013
Rise of peaceful, responsible China in the interests of all
Tip O'Neill used to say, all politics is local. I believe all politics, particularly international politics, is personal. I think personal relationships matter. So when I visited China I made it absolutely clear that the United States does not view China
with hostile intent and that we can cooperate and compete simultaneously. I've said many times, the rise of a peaceful and responsible China that contributes to global security and prosperity is in the interests of all nations.
And we all have a role
to play in encouraging Beijing to define its interests more in terms of common global concerns than merely introspective concerns. The United States is a Pacific power. The bottom line is that the USA has an important and specific interest in an
Asia-Pacific region that is peaceful and growing--as do our Russian friends and our Japanese friends. So we ought to intensify our cooperation in advance of those interests, moving forward together.
Source: Speech at the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany
, Feb 6, 2013
GOP too tough but not smart; Dems not tough enough
Joe Biden, who was then lining up to run for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination, aptly summarized the obstacles the party faced. Biden argued that the Democrats needed to shake off a sense of drift and paralysis in foreign policy caused by its
reaction to Vietnam. "The American people have grave doubts about the Democrats' willingness to back diplomacy with power," Biden said in 1986. "People think the Republicans are too tough but not very smart, and the Democrats are not tough enough."
Source: The Obamians, by James Mann, p. 26
, Jun 14, 2012
VP role: bring experience, but not deciding voice
In her early days as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton seemed uncertain of her role within the administration and eager to show she was no wild-eyed idealist (as Republicans liked to portray her).
Vice President Joe Biden seemed to sympathize with those who favored an emphasis on democracy and human rights, but
Biden was not the deciding voice in the administration; he'd been put on the ticket not to make foreign policy, but to demonstrate to voters that the Obama administration would have foreign policy experience.
No one expected Secretary of Defense Gates to be anything other than a realist; the Pentagon is not typically the place from which to lead a campaign to spread democracy.
Source: The Obamians, by James Mann, p.169
, Jun 14, 2012
US and Russia can disagree and still work together
When we came into office two years ago, our relationship with Russia had reached a low point. The war between Russia and Georgia played a role in that decline, but even before that conflict erupted in August 2008, a dangerous drift was under way.
While we no longer considered each other enemies, you couldn't always tell that from the rhetoric flying back and forth. Ironically, this came at a time when American and Russian security interests, as well as economic interests, were more closely
aligned than ever. That's why Pres. Obama made it a priority to reset our relationship with Russia--and asked me to launch it just three weeks into the new administration at the Munich Security Conference. I said then that "the United States and
Russia can disagree and still work together where our interests coincide. And they coincide in many places."
We focused the reset on concrete outcomes that serve both countries' interests--"win-wins," as President Obama calls them.
Source: Joe Biden Op-Ed in International Herald Tribune
, Mar 14, 2011
1986: Strict sanctions against South African apartheid
On the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden unleashed an uncommonly sharp tongue in July 1986, accusing mild-mannered Secretary of State George Shulz of softening economic sanctions against South Africa for its policy of apartheid. "We ask them to put up
a timetable [for remedial action]," he thundered, waiving a fist. "What is our timetable? Where do we stand morally? I hate to hear an administration and a secretary of state refusing to act on a morally abhorrent point.
I'm ashamed of this country that puts out a policy like this that says nothing, nothing. I'm ashamed of the lack of moral backbone to this policy." The diplomatic Shulz countered "What we want is a society that they all can live in together. So I don't
turn my back on the whites and I would hope that you wouldn't." Biden countered grandly: "I speak for the oppressed, whatever they may be." To many, Biden was discourteously browbeating the secretary of state and tooting his own horn in the process.
Source: A Life of Trial & Redemption, by Jules Witcover, p.164
, Oct 5, 2010
Nation-building can prevent full-scale military actions
Biden in January 2001 returned to Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia and called for continued American troop and reconstruction efforts. Writing in the New York Times, he said, "We must make clear that our security umbrella and economic
assistance will continue only if Bosnia breaks free from the stranglehold of its three nationalist parties. The fact is, nation-building, if done well, can prevent vastly more expensive full-scale military actions."
Source: A Life of Trial & Redemption, by Jules Witcover, p.331
, Oct 5, 2010
1990: Predicted that Soviet Union would cease to exist
Appropriately, he spoke in his declaration of candidacy of his worldview, predicting that "long before the Senate term I seek now is over, the Soviet Union as the world has known it for seventy years will cease to exist."
In the 1990 Senate race, Biden was no longer the unpolished kid candidate taking on the giant incumbent as in 1972, but now the familiar, seasoned and worldly Senate man and national figure.
Biden's vision, his confident presence was more than enough to draw a telling difference between himself and his opponent.
He prophesized that it would dissolve into separate and independent nations, possibly in a loose confederation. Whether or not listeners believed
Source: A Life of Trial & Redemption, by Jules Witcover, p.245
, Oct 5, 2010
New World Order should not mean US fights for the UN
Kuwait, with a January 15 deadline. Biden expressed concern that the president had changed and broadened his foreign policy goals in the Middle East. "We talk about a New World Order," he said, "A
Resolution 678 authorized member states "to use all necessary means" to force compliance with the UN demands for Iraq's withdrawal from
You go get them; we give you the authority to do it.' That is the essence of that New World Order. That is not a New World Order I am prepared to sign on to."
New World Order in the United Nations and collective security adds up to 'We will hold your coat, United States.
Source: A Life of Trial & Redemption, by Jules Witcover, p.249-250
, Oct 5, 2010
First VP speech: Refute Bush's unilateralist foreign policy
Biden's new role as a major administration spokesman on both domestic and foreign policy began. Barely two weeks in office, Obama sent him to Munich to make the administration's first prominent speech on foreign affairs, at an annual
European security conference. In a direct refutation of the Bush unilateralist foreign policy, Biden said, "I come to Europe on behalf of a new administration determined to set a new tone not only in Washington but in
America's relations around the world" that would "work in a partnership whenever we can, and alone only when we must." He said his country henceforth would "strive to act preventatively, nor preemptively" to avoid use of force "to stop crises
from occurring before they are in front of us, starting with diplomacy. And he reached out to the NATO partners and Russia to give more to the effort to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda."
Source: A Life of Trial & Redemption, by Jules Witcover, p.446-447
, Oct 5, 2010
Condemned 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem
In Feb. 2010, Biden had just completed a rousing speech in Jerusalem and had vowed "absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israeli security" when the Israeli interior ministry announced that 1,600 new housing units would be built in East Jerusalem.
The ministry said the decision had been 3 years in the making, had nothing to do with Biden's arrival. Biden immediately condemned the decision in scathing terms, calling it "precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now."
Biden thereupon delayed his arrival as a demonstration of his disapproval. The next day Biden went on to the Palestinian Territory. There he told Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that the latest Israeli decision "undermined that very trust that we need
right now in order to have profitable negotiations," and was "why I immediately condemned the action." He said his criticism came "at the request of Pres. Obama," which drew applause, addition that "sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth."
Source: A Life of Trial & Redemption, by Jules Witcover, p.470-471
, Oct 5, 2010
Time to sit down and talk, talk, talk to enemies
Q: Secretaries of State Baker, Kissinger, Powell, they have all advocated some level of engagement with enemies. Do you think these former secretaries of state are wrong on that?
PALIN: No. Kissinger shared with me his passion for diplomacy. But with
some of these dictators who hate America and hate what we stand for, they cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do.
BIDEN: #1, Barack Obama did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad. #2
five secretaries of state did say we should talk with and sit down. Now, John and Gov. Palin now say we have to bring our friends and allies along. Our friends and allies have been saying, “Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk.” Our friends and allies have been
saying that, 5 secretaries of state, 3 of them Republicans. And John McCain has said he would go along with an agreement, but he wouldn’t sit down. Now, how do you do that when you don’t have your administration sit down and talk with the adversary?
Source: 2008 Vice Presidential debate against Gov. Sarah Palin
, Oct 2, 2008
Bush’s approach to middle east has been disastrous
Q: How would you solve Israel/Palestinian conflict?
BIDEN: No one in the Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion. But you asked whether
this administration’s policy had made sense. It has been a failure. Bush insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, “Big mistake. Hamas will win.” What happened? Hamas won. We kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said, “Move NATO forces in there.
Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.“ Now what happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government. We will change this policy with diplomacy that understands that you must let Israel negotiate and stand with them, not
insist on policies like this administration has.
PALIN: A two-state solution is the solution. That needs to be done, and that will be a top agenda item under a McCain-Palin administration. Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East.
Source: 2008 Vice Presidential debate against Sarah Palin
, Oct 2, 2008
FactCheck: McCain did not refuse to sit down with Spain
Biden said that McCain had refused to meet with the government of Spain, but McCain made no such definite statement. Biden said, “John McCain... wouldn’t even sit down with the government of Spain, a NATO ally. I find that incredible.”
In a Sept. 17
interview, McCain appeared confused when asked whether he would meet with Pres. Zapatero of Spain. He responded that “I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are our friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion,” but then started
talking about leaders in Latin America. He did not commit to meeting with Zapatero, but it wasn’t clear he’d understood the question.
But the McCain campaign denied that their candidate was confused, responding by email, “Senator McCain knew exactly to
whom the question referred. Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with Pres. Zapatero in this interview.” That’s not a refusal to meet with Zapatero, as Biden said. It’s simply a refusal to commit himself one way or the other.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Vice Presidential debate
, Oct 2, 2008
The US is less secure and more isolated in recent history
Our country is less secure and more isolated that it has been any time it has in recent history. The Bush foreign policy has dug us into a very deep hole, with very few friends to help us climb out. For the last seven years, the administration has failed
to face the biggest forces shaping this century. The emergence of Russia, China and India’s great powers, the spread of lethal weapons, the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water. The challenge of climate change and the resurgence of
fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front in the war on terror. We once again see the consequences of the neglect of Russia challenging the very freedom of a new democratic country of Georgia. Barack and I will end that neglect.
We will hold Russia accountable for its action and we will help Georgia rebuild. I have been on the ground in Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms, this administration’s policy has been an abysmal failure.
Source: Speech at 2008 Democratic National Convention
, Aug 27, 2008
Even Bush recognizes we should talk to Iran
After 7 years of denial, even the Bush Administration recognizes we should talk to Iran because that the best way to ensure our security. Should we trust John McCain’s judgment when he says that we can’t have no timelines to withdraw our troops from Iraq
or should we listen to Obama who says shift the responsibility to the Iraqis and set a time to bring our combat troops home. Now, after 6 long years, the administration and the Iraqi government are on the verge of setting a date to bring our troops home.
Source: Speech at 2008 Democratic National Convention
, Aug 27, 2008
Doctrine of crisis prevention, not preemption
Q: When future historians write of your administration’s foreign policy, what will be noted as your doctrine?
A: Clarity. Prevention, not preemption. An absolute repudiation of this president’s doctrine, which has only three legs in the stool: 1) don’t
talk to anybody; 2) preemption; & 3) regime change. I would reject all three. We need a doctrine of prevention. The role of a great power is to prevent crises. And we don’t have to imagine any of the crises. You have Pakistan, Russia, China, Darfur.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate
, Dec 13, 2007
Hold China accountable; it’s capitulation, not competition
Q: Many presidential candidates have talked tough about China and its human rights record in the past but, in the end, favor securing our economic interest rather than risk upsetting China. How would you balance human rights and trade with China?
I’ve been pushing, on the Foreign Relations Committee for the last seven years, that we hold China accountable at the United Nations. At the UN, we won’t even designate China as a violator of human rights. Now, what’s the deal there?
We talk about competition in terms of trade. It’s capitulation, not competition. Name me another country in the world that we would allow to conduct themselves the way China has, and not call them on the carpet at the UN
Q: So you would call them on th
Q: You would appoint a UN ambassador who would press for this?
A: It’s the one way to get China to reform. You can’t close your eyes. You can’t pretend. It is self-defeating. It’s a Hobson’s choice we’re giving people here.
Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR
, Dec 4, 2007
Move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy
I do not think we should maintain the same aid we’re giving. I have made it clear to Musharraf. If he did not take off his uniform, if he did not hold fair and free elections by the middle of January, I would on the floor of the Senate move to take away
the aid we’re giving with regard to F-16s and P-3s, because that’s the biggest leverage you have on him within his military. He is not a sole player. He has to keep his military happy as well. I would use that leverage. We should move from a Musharraf
policy to a Pakistan policy. Unlike anyone else, within 5 days of this happening, I laid out a detailed plan. You have to move from military aid to giving to the middle class there. The middle class is overwhelmingly the majority. They get no connection
with the US. We have to significantly increase our economic aid relative to education, relative to NGOs, relative to all those things that make a difference in the lives of ordinary people over there, and not be doing it through the military side.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada
, Nov 15, 2007
Pakistani elections will be a sham if emergency not lifted
Q: General Musharraf, the president of Pakistan, says the elections are going to take place before the 9th of January. But there is no word when the state of national emergency is going to be lifted. And a lot of critics are already saying how can you go
ahead and campaign, how can you have elections, how can the opposition operate if this state of emergency continues
A: Well, it can’t. Musharraf called me about six days ago. I had a long conversation with him.
And he indicated to me that the elections would go off within this 60-day timeframe, that he would take off his uniform, and that as soon as possible before--BEFORE--the election date, the state of emergency would be lifted.
Absent him lifting the state of emergency, this will be a sham. And if he does not do that, then I think there is not much hope for there to be the kind of accommodation and power sharing that everybody hopes will occur as a consequence of this election.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer
, Nov 11, 2007
Pakistan is potentially most dangerous country in the world
Q: [to Biden]: Why isn’t Senator Obama ready?
BIDEN: Look, I think he’s a wonderful guy. It was about Pakistan we were talking about. The fact of the matter is, Pakistan is potentially the most dangerous country in the world. A significant minority of
jihadists with nuclear weapons. We have no Pakistan policy; we have a Musharraf policy. That’s a bad policy. The policy should be based upon a long-term relationship with Pakistan and stability. We should be encouraging free elections. There is an
overwhelming majority of moderates in that country. They should have their day.
Q: But when you were asked, “Is he ready?” you said, “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to
BIDEN: I think I stand by the statement.
OBAMA: If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and we’ve exhausted all other options, we should take him out before he plans to kill another 3,000 Americans. I think that’s common sense
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week”
, Aug 19, 2007
China holds the mortgage on our house, to pay for war
Q: Is China an ally or an adversary?
A: They’re neither. The fact of the matter is, though, they hold the mortgage on our house. This administration, in order to fund a war that shouldn’t be being fought and tax cuts that weren’t needed
for the wealthy--we’re now in debt almost a trillion dollars to China. We better end that war, cut those taxes, reduce the deficit and make sure that they no longer own the mortgage on our home.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum
, Aug 8, 2007
American troops on the ground in Darfur now
Q: In the past, you’ve talked about NATO troops in Darfur. What about American troops?
A: Absolutely, positively. Look, I’m so tired of this. I heard the same arguments after I came back from meeting with Milosevic: We can’t act; we can’t send troops
there. Where we can, America must. Why Darfur? Because we can. We should now. Those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over. 2500 American troops can stop the genocide now. I have called for a no-fly zone, but you need troops on the ground.
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC
, Jul 23, 2007
US troops on ground in Sudan to end Darfur carnage
Q [to Sen. Dodd]: Darfur is the second time that our nation has had a chance to do something about genocide in Africa. The first came in Rwanda in 1994, when we did nothing.
DODD: We’ve unfortunately, as a result of our conflict in
Iraq, have lost our moral authority. And as a result of that, our ability to mobilize the world on issues like Darfur has been severely damaged. But the United States should be able to take some unilateral action here
I have been calling for three years to stop talking and start acting. We don’t have to wait to get out of Iraq to regain our moral authority. We’ve lost part of our moral authority because we stood by and watched this carnage. And if need be, if the rest
of the world will not act, we should, and should have already--two years ago--imposed a no-fly zone, and we should have--two years ago, absent the willingness of the rest of the world to act--put American troops on the ground to stop the carnage.
Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University
, Jun 28, 2007
Biggest threat to US is from North Korea, Iran, & Russia
Q: What three nations, other than Iraq, represent, to you, the biggest threat to the United States?
A: The biggest threat to the US is, right now, North Korea. Iran not as big a threat, but a long-term threat.
And quite frankly, the tendency of Putin to move in a totalitarian direction, which would unhinge all that’s going on positively in Europe.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC
, Apr 26, 2007
Joe Biden on Voting Record
1993: Strongly endorsed $1.6B Russia aid package
In March 1993, I got an assistance program I could support: $1.6 billion in direct aid to help Russia stabilize.
Although a public poll said that 75% of the American people were opposed to giving Russia more money, and we were already in a hard
fight for the economic plan, I felt we had no choice but to press ahead. American had spent trillions of dollars in defense to win the Cold War; we couldn't risk reversal over less that $2 billion and a bad poll.
To the surprise of my staff, the congressional leaders, including the Republicans, agreed with me. At a meeting I convened to push the plan, Senator Joe Biden, the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, strongly endorsed the aid package. Newt Gingrich was passionately in favor of helping Russia, saying it was a "great defining moment" for American and we had to do the right thing.
Source: My Life, by Bill Clinton, p.506-507
, Jun 21, 2004
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 capping 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.
Vetoed by President ClintonVeto message of 10/18/1999: W cannot protect American interests at home without active engagement abroad. We must lead in the world, working with other nations to defuse crises, repel dangers, promote more open economic and political systems, and strengthen the rule of law. This bill rejects all of those principles.
The overall funding provided by H.R. 2606 is inadequate. By denying America a decent investment in diplomacy, this bill suggests we should meet threats to our security with our military might alone. That is a dangerous proposition. For if we underfund our diplomacy, we will end up overusing our military.
For example, A generation from now, no one is going to say we did too much to help the nations of the former Soviet Union safeguard their nuclear technology and expertise. If the funding cuts in this bill were to become law, future generations would certainly say we did too little and that we imperiled our future in the process.
Reference: H.R. 2606 Conference Report;
Bill H.R. 2606
; vote number 1999-312
on Oct 6, 1999
Status: Conf Rpt Agreed to Y)51; N)49
Voted NO 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 YES 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
Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine.
Biden 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.
Impose sanctions and an import ban on Burma.
Biden 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.
Biden co-sponsored 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.
Biden 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.
Biden introduced 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.
Biden 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.
Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations.
Biden co-sponsored urging Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations
Source: Radio Caracas Resolution (S.RES.211) 2007-SR211 on May 21, 2007
- WHEREAS for several months, the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, has been announcing over various media that he will not renew the current concession of the television station "Radio Caracas Televisión", also known as RCTV, which is set to expire on May 27, 2007, because of its adherence to an editorial stance different from his way of thinking;
- WHEREAS President Chavez justifies this measure based on the alleged role RCTV played in the unsuccessful unconstitutional attempts in April 2002 to unseat President Chavez, under circumstances where there exists no filed complaint or judicial sentence that would sustain such a charge under Venezuelan law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Senate--
- (1) expresses its profound concern about the transgression against freedom of thought and expression that is being committed in Venezuela by the refusal of the President Hugo Chavez to renew the concession of RCTV
- (2) strongly encourages the Organization of American States to respond appropriately, with full consideration of the necessary institutional instruments, to such transgression.
Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO.
Biden co-sponsored including Ukraine & Georgia in NATO
Congressional Summary: A resolution expressing strong support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enter into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and Ukraine:
- reaffirming support for enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include democratic governments that are able to meet the membership responsibilities;
- that NATO's expansion contributes to its relevance;
- that Georgia and Ukraine are strong allies that have made important progress in the areas of defense and democratic and human rights reform;
- that a stronger relationship among Georgia, Ukraine, and NATO will benefit those countries and NATO member states; and
- that the United States should take the lead in supporting the awarding of a Membership Action Plan to Georgia and Ukraine.
Legislative Outome: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
Source: S.RES.439 & H.RES.997 2008-SR439 on Jan 31, 2008
Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet.
Biden co-sponsored condemning the violence by Chinese government in Tibet
A resolution condemning the violence in Tibet and calling for restraint by the Government of the People's Republic of China and the people of Tibet. Calls for:
- a dialogue between the government of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama on religious and cultural autonomy for Tibet within China; and
- release of peaceful protesters.
Calls on the PRC to: Urges that the agreement permitting the PRC to open further diplomatic missions in the United States should be contingent upon establishment of a U.S. government office in Lhasa, Tibet.
Source: S.RES.504 2008-SR504 on Apr 7, 2008
- respect the right of the people of Tibet to speak of the Dalai Lama and possess his photograph;
- respect basic human rights;
- allow international journalists free access to China; and
- provide a full accounting of the March 2008 protests in Tibet.
Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy.
Biden co-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.
Pressure friendly Arab states to end Israeli boycott.
Biden signed Schumer-Graham letter to Secy. Rice from 79 Congress members
Dear Secretary Rice,
Source: Schumer-Graham letter to Secy. Rice from 79 Congress members 2010-LT-AR on Oct 2, 2007
In the past, the lack of sufficient support from [non-participating] Arab states have made it difficult to reach agreements [on the Arab-Israeli conflict]. You should press friendly Arab countries that have not yet done so, to:
- Participate in the upcoming international meeting and be a full partner of the US in advancing regional peace
- Take visible, meaningful steps in the financial, diplomatic and political arena to help Palestinian President Abbas govern effectively and meet obligations to fight terror
- Stop support for terrorist groups and cease all anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement
- Recognize Israel's right to exist and not use such recognition as a bargaining chip for future Israeli concessions
- End the Arab League economic boycott of Israel in all of its forms
- Pressure Hamas to recognize Israel, reject terror, and accept prior agreements, and isolate Hamas until it takes such steps.
Page last updated: Jan 14, 2015