Kerry On Iraq in Spring 2001 - Before "Everything Changed"

[DrFunkenstein]

I found this Washington Journal article this morning after I noticed that GOP intended to show Kerry's long-time support of disarmament as a weakness (because Kerry said Bush MAY HAVE "misled us" on certain intelligence).

The article is remarkable for Kerry's commitment to progressive internationalism as a matter of long-term national interest. Kerry supports:

1)engagement with China while holding them to human rights treaties

2)U.S. assistance to Russia "at the grassroots level" to foster a stable middle class, while working hard to reduce nuclear arsenals and strongly curb proliferation

3)fostering international ties through Kyoto, the landmine ban, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and actually paying U.N. dues.

On North Korea, Kerrys says:

"It is important that the Bush administration not allow the Congress to undermine the 1994 Agreed Framework, which holds real promise for verifiably freezing and eliminating the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for annual shipments of heavy fuel oil and the construction of two light-water reactors to provide a long-term energy source to North Korea.

Congress should not unilaterally alter the agreement by underfunding
or injecting new conditions on the promised U.S. contributions."

And finally, I will quote Kerry in full on the issue of Iraq:

"Nearly ten years after the United States and a coalition of allies defeated Saddam Hussein, the international sanctions regime against Iraq has clearly failed to force a change in leadership in Baghdad and has lost meaningful support in the world community as a means of eliminating his weapons programs. Each newspaper story about commercial flights from Moscow or Paris into Baghdad International Airport further discredits the sanctions regime.

Meanwhile, the people of Iraq continue to suffer terribly, as Saddam profits from the sanctions, using them as a tool for maintaining his reign of terror. The oil-for-food program has improved access to food and medical supplies in Iraq, especially in the northern territories not under Saddam’s control, but humanitarian conditions in Iraq remain bleak.
In Congress, concern that Iraq is rebuilding its WMD programs is bipartisan.

Since the withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq two years ago,
however, little serious attention has been paid—either by the Congress or the White House—to addressing Iraq’s growing threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region. What little debate there might have been over the UN’s attempt to lift economic sanctions on Iraq in exchange for a resumption of inspections evaporated as it became clear that Saddam would not consider allowing UN inspectors to return. In the absence of international inspections, it is vital that tight sanctions remain in place on exports of military goods and dual-use technologies to contain Iraq’s ability to threaten its neighbors. Secretary of State Colin Powell is preparing to reinvigorate the international sanctions regime. Such an effort is not only warranted, but long overdue.

Rebuilding the coalition to hold Saddam accountable to international
law, however, will not be easy. Given the de facto evisceration of the UN sanctions regime, the United States may have to find another way to ensure that goods and technology meant for Iraq’s weapons programs do not find their way to Baghdad. We should be willing to consider adjusting the currenteconomic sanctions, as long as such a change is accompanied by renewedcommitments from U.S. allies and others to enforce the sanctions on military and dual-use exports to Iraq."

http://www.twq.com/01spring/kerry.pdf

[blm]

1. In short...

Kerry always wanted regime change to bring stability and improve the human conditions in Iraq, as did Clinton and Gore. None of them were on board a war for oil and power. They were, however, highly cognizant that the suffering was pushing more of the citizenry towards the extremist religious groups operating in the region, and towards Usama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Kerry Is Rock Solid On Foreign Policy

His statement on North Korea couldn't be clearer, or more prescient, at a time when no one else was even thinking about them.

"It is important that the Bush administration not allow the Congress to undermine the 1994 Agreed Framework, which holds real promise for verifiably freezing and eliminating the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for annual shipments of heavy fuel oil and the construction of two light-water reactors to provide a long-term energy source to North Korea.

Congress should not unilaterally alter the agreement by underfunding
or injecting new conditions on the promised U.S. contributions."

Kerry has tremendous depth to his policy positions, and seems to come to all the right conclusions. How many other major candidates are talking about parallel concessions in the Middle East? Bolstering the Russian middle class?

Kerry is absolutely in the best position to heal the gaping wounds of trust inflicted by Bush's administration.