-


John Kerry: Much Ado About Nothing « elcidharth
24 mins ago – Tea Party favorites and potential 2016 presidential rivals Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio showed clues on how they might differ as …
GlobalPost
10:09 AM - Public
John Kerry’s confirmation hearing follows Clinton grilling (LIVE VIDEO) »
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Sen. John Kerry to be named secretary of state.1+5
Sid Harth7:28 PMEditJohn Kerry: Much Ado About Nothing@elcidharth.comAdd a comment…New! Chat with the people in your circlesYou can now chat with the people in your circles (who also have you in their circles). Change which circles you can chat with by choosing Privacy Settings from the chat menu. Learn more©2013 Google – Terms – Map data © 2013 : Terms of Use – Content Policy – Privacy – English (United States) / Set region – Create a pagePriyanka BoghaniJanuary 24, 2013 09:50Updated January 24, 2013 14:20Related Articles
Rand Paul, Marco Rubio Show Off Foreign Policy Cred in John Kerry Hearing
Aspiring conservative presidential candidates differ on foreign policy
January 24, 2013 RSS Feed Print
Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, left, and Rand Paul of Kentucky hold significantly different foreign policy philosophies.Tea Party favorites and potential 2016 presidential rivals Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio showed clues on how they might differ as candidates in a Republican primary Thursday during the confirmation hearing for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry as Secretary of State.
Both Paul, of Kentucky, and Rubio, of Florida, offered critiques of the Obama administration’s handling of the Libyan conflict but offered differing rationales.
Rubio, who has worked to build mainstream appeal without sacrificing his conservative principles or popularity, told Kerry he wished the United States had been more aggressive during the initial Libyan conflict.
[READ: Paul Threatens to Filibuster Aid to Pakistan]
“I was not suggesting that the U.S. should have invaded or put soldiers on the ground,” Rubio said. “We did certain things in the first 48 to 72 hours of that conflict – had we extended that for a couple weeks that conflict would have ended a lot sooner. In hindsight, a shortened conflict there would have certainly led to a government that would have been stronger and less instability than exists now.”
But Paul, who has earned a reputation for not being afraid to place himself out-of-the-mainstream on a variety of issues, opposed America’s Libyan intervention on constitutional grounds.
“[Obama] took us to war in Libya without congressional authority, unilaterally,” he said. “I would argue though that the Constitution really has no exceptions for when you are having a tough time or people disagree with you, that you just go ahead and do it.”
[RELATED: Top 2016 Presidential Contenders]
Paul also pointed out that in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama shared his opposition to presidents unilaterally going to war, and that Kerry himself had spoken out against U.S. involvement in Cambodia in the 1970s on the same grounds.
“The Constitution doesn’t really give this kind of latitude to sometimes go to war and to sometimes not go to war,” Paul said. “I thought [candidate] Barack Obama was very explicit, it’s what I liked about him frankly. People are like, ‘oh, Rand Paul certainly doesn’t like anything about Barack Obama,’ I did like his forthrightness when he ran for office and said ‘no president should unilaterally go to war, the Constitution doesn’t allow it.’”
Kerry refuted Paul’s assertion that there were parallels between what happened in Cambodia and what is happening in Libya and defended the Obama administration’s actions.
[WATCH: Clinton Faces Down Senate Panel]
“You can be absolutist and apply it to every circumstance, the problem is, it just doesn’t work in some instances,” Kerry said, adding that as a senator, he supported unilateral action taken by President Ronald Reagan in Grenada, President George H.W. Bush in Panama and President Bill Clinton in Bosnia.
“When 10,000 people are about to be wiped out by a brutal dictator and you need to make a quick judgment about engagement, you certainly can’t rely on a Congress that has proven itself unwilling to move after weeks and months sometimes,” Kerry said.
It’s obvious Paul – whose father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, was unafraid of standing alone on issues – is consciously stoking issues designed to appeal to the most conservative voting bloc. It will ensure he inherits the passionately loyal support his father’s purity also cultivated, but may not bode well for his chances of ever winning the White House. Rubio, on the other hand, appears to be working hard to thread the needle of proving to be unquestionably conservative but without losing mainstream credibility and appeal.
John Kerry’s confirmation hearing follows Clinton grilling (VIDEO)
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Sen. John Kerry to be named secretary of state.
Enlarge
US Senator John Kerry D-MA (R) watches as US President Barack Obama announces Kerry as his choice for the next secretary of state on December 21, 2012 in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a confirmation hearing on Thursday for Sen. John Kerry to serve as secretary of state.
The hearing comes just a day after the committee grilled departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on September 11 of last year.
Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat, gave Kerry a glowing introduction, saying he was sure Kerry would pass any test the position could throw at him. Republican Sen. Bob Corker said, “My sense is your confirmation will go through very, very quickly.”
Clinton was present at the hearing, nodding while Corker described the changes the State Department will need to undergo in the aftermath of the attack in Benghazi.
Clinton, Sen. John McCain and newly elected Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduced Kerry.
Warren, Kerry’s junior senator from Massachusetts, highlighted Kerry’s diplomatic abilities, talking about how he negotiated politics in the Northeastern state. She talked about his foreign policy experience while serving in the Senate, including working on negotiations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“John says, ‘American isn’t exceptional because we say we are. We are exceptional because we do exceptional things,’” Warren said.
Clinton said, “John is the right choice,” to carry out the Obama administration’s foreign policy goals, calling for a swift confirmation. “He is committed to doing whatever it takes to prevent another attack,” she said, referring to Benghazi.
“He is a determined and effective representative of the United States,” said Clinton.
McCain focused on Kerry’s personal qualities, saying that while they had their political differences, McCain respected Kerry. He relayed an anecdote, focusing on both their pasts as Vietnam veterans and politicians and highlighting Kerry’s leadership of the select committee on POW/MIA affairs in the 1990s.
“Suddenly I’m feeling a lot of sympathy for the folks who sit down here,” Kerry joked when he took his seat in front of the committee.
“I can pledge to you that as a veteran of war I will always carry in my mind the consequences” of war, said Kerry.
He also called for a swift solution to the fiscal crisis affecting the US, saying that it weakened America’s standing in the world. “We can’t be strong in the world if we’re not strong at home,” he said.
“No nation is as committed to the cause of human rights as we are,” Kerry said.
“American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone,” he said. American foreign policy is also defined by leadership in food aid, humanitarian aid, energy security and climate change, he continued. “America lives up to its values when we give voice to the voiceless.”
On Iran’s nuclear program, Kerry said, “Our policy is not containment; it is prevention.”
“Today’s world is more complicated than anything we have experienced.”
Kerry choked up a bit when talking about his father, who was a foreign service officer.
A protester interrupted Kerry’s testimony as he was finishing up. Kerry, appearing calm, said, “I respect the woman who was voicing her concerns about that part of the world,” after she was led out by security.
The Washington Post has a full transcript of Kerry’s prepared remarks.
Iran
When the hearing turned to the questions portion, Kerry stressed the importance of addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “They have continually professed the peacefulness of their program,” he said, according to the Guardian. “It takes intrusive inspections… everybody understands what they are.”
Afghanistan
Kerry said a more rapid handover of leadership to Afghan forces was possible. “Our troops in the near term, sometime this year, will not be in the lead,” he said. The current deadline for US withdrawal from Afghanistan is set for 2014.
“There will be a counterterrorism mission that will continue… beyond 2014,” Kerry said, according to the Guardian.
Libya
Kerry said he approved of President Obama’s handling of the situation in Libya. It “was smart… I think the American people approved of the way that was handled.”
Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, who angered Clinton yesterday with his line of questioning on Benghazi, referred to the incident while asking his question: “Yesterday when I was asking what I thought was a simple question… Secretary Clinton’s reaction was, and I quote, ‘What difference at this point does it make?’”
Clinton, yesterday, said angrily, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night [who] decided to go kill some Americans? At this point what difference does it make senator?”
“I think it makes a big difference,” Johnson said today. “I think it matters a great deal that the American people get the truth.” He continued, “My question is, do you agree with that point? Are you willing to work with me?”
Kerry responded, “Senator, if you’re trying to get some daylight between me and secretary Clinton, you’re not going to. I think you’re talking past each other.”
The Associated Press predicted that Kerry would likely face friendly questioning, since he has served on the committee for the past 28 years and led it for the past four.
- Hello SiDevilIam
National Security
Kerry sails through Senate confirmation hearing on secretary of state bid
Video: Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his confirmation hearing for Secretary of State.By Anne Gearan, Updated: Thursday, January 24, 4:47 PM
Gallery
More from PostPolitics
Harry Reid explains why he killed filibuster reform
Ezra Klein 12:58 PM ET
WONKBLOG | In an exclusive interview, the Senate majority leader explains the filibuster deal.
Jindal speaking truth to GOP power
Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake 6:30 AM ET
THE FIX | The Louisiana governor will deliver a forceful denunciation of his party’s Washington-centric focus in a speech to the RNC Thursday.
Hillary Clinton shines on the Hill
Suzi Parker 6:23 AM ET
SHE THE PEOPLE | The outgoing secretary of state conquered the Capitol on Wednesday.
Asked about the personal bond he once had with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Kerry said the hopes he once had for an opening with Syria are moot. “Sometimes there are moments where you may be able to get something done in foreign policy, and if the moment somehow doesn’t ripen correctly or get seized, you miss major opportunities,” Kerry said.
He has been called naive for thinking Assad might become a political reformer. Now he sounds resigned to a continuation of the bloody factional fight.
“Right now, President Assad doesn’t think he’s losing, and the opposition thinks it’s winning,” Kerry said. “That is not an equation that allows you to reach some accommodation for transition.”
But when pressed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about getting more directly involved in helping the Syrian rebels, Kerry said he needs time to understand the situation better.
On Iran, he said that negotiation is the better path but that if Iran refuses to talk in a meaningful way, “we will do what we must.” That was a sum-up of the Obama administration’s two-pronged, and so far unsuccessful, attempt to offer Iran a deal while threatening military action if it pushes on toward a nuclear weapon.
Kerry urged a bipartisan approach to policy issues, something on display when McCain joined Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in introducing him at the start of the hearing. Kerry and McCain have clashed over policies and politics, but they have remained friends.
As Kerry finished his opening remarks, a woman shouted from the rear of the hearing room: “I’m tired of my friends in the Middle East dying!”
Kerry told Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who was presiding over the hearing, that he respects the woman’s opinion and her right to voice it. He recalled that he once testified before Congress as a war protester. “People measure what we do,” Kerry said. “In a way, that’s a good exclamation point to my testimony.”
Karen DeYoung and Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.
170
Comments
Statement of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), secretary of state nominee, at hearing before Senate Foreign Relations committee
Video: Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his confirmation hearing for Secretary of State.Thursday, January 24, 10:59 AM
I would add that I’m particularly aware that in many ways the greatest challenge to America’s foreign policy will be in your hands, not mine – because while it’s often said that we can’t be strong at home if we’re not strong in the world, in these days of fiscal crisis, and as a recovering member of the Super-Committee, I am especially cognizant of the fact that we can’t be strong in the world unless we are strong at home – and the first priority of business which will affect my credibility as a diplomat working to help other countries create order, is whether America at last puts its own fiscal house in order.
I can’t emphasize enough how critical this imperative is. People all over the world are looking to the United States for leadership. We are known as the indispensable nation for good reason. No nation has more opportunity to advance the cause of democracy and no nation is as committed to the cause of human rights as we are. But to protect our nation and make good on all our promises, as well as to live up to our ideals and meet the crisis of this moment, it is urgent that we show people we can get our business done in an effective and timely way. It is difficult enough to solve some of the problems we face, but it becomes near impossible if we ourselves replace our credibility and leverage with gridlock and dysfunction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I know there’s a lot of ground to cover and, as a veteran of this Committee, I know we do best when we are engaging in a dialogue. I look forward to doing that now.
1
Comments
Add your comment | Reply to a comment | Recommend a comment | Report an offensive comment
- washingtonpost.com
- © 1996-2013 The Washington Post
Council on Foreign Relations
Congress and U.S. Foreign Policy
Congress and U.S. Foreign Policy
Author: Toni Johnson
January 24, 2013
Introduction
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress extensive powers to shape foreign policy though congressional activism and influence on foreign policy has varied over time. Lawmakers seldom interact directly with other nations on policy, but the laws that Congress passes, or treaties and nominations the Senate approves, can influence U.S. interactions with other countries. Foreign policy has been a source of tension through the years between Capitol Hill and the White House, especially over issues such as sanctions and foreign aid, trade, and human rights. The 113th Congress, which took office in January 2013, has already signaled a continuation of policy push and pull.
Congress Versus the President
The president, or executive branch, has the power to initiate as well as implement foreign policy through responses to foreign events, proposals for legislation, negotiation of international agreements, nomination of leading foreign policy officials, and statements of policy. Congressional approval is needed for spending, and consent is required for finalizing of trade agreements. More ambiguous are war powers, which are spelled out more clearly for Congress but in practice are dominated by presidential action.
“Generally speaking, Congress does not try to upstage the president on major international issues but likes to keep an oar in the water,” says Donald R. Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center. But other experts point to a number of examples in which Congress has openly defied presidents, such as refusing to approve the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and 1920, the overwhelming defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999, and the ongoing opposition to approving the Convention on the Law of the Sea despite support by successive U.S. presidents.
Congress has historically used its oversight role, issuing subpoenas in event of investigations, to show its disapproval of executive actions or change policy. High-profile investigations in the last half-century include probes into the Iran-Contra Affair and the intelligence problems leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks. More recent investigations include the Justice Department’s conduct in a cross-border gun sting known as the “Fast and the Furious” operation and the scrutiny into circumstances surrounding the September 2011 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya.
The Power of the Purse
Congress’s funding power influences foreign policy a number of ways. For instance, when President Barack Obama issued an executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in March of 2011, lawmakers banned the use of federal dollars for the transfer by attaching language to a spending bill that was too critical for Obama to veto. More recently, in the defense authorization bill (WashPost) passed in January 2013 Congress strengthened limits on transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay and other U.S. facilities to the United States or a third country.
In another example, Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) in September 2012 used her position as chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign aid to prevent an impending USAID transfer (NYT) of $450 million in emergency aid to Egypt, despite Obama’s pledge of $1 billion to help ease debts during the transition from military rule.
The move was made in response to the rising influence of Muslim Brotherhood members (RollCall) in Egypt’s politics, and some U.S. lawmakers wanted to make the aid conditional upon meeting certain benchmarks. By early 2013, this aid was still held up in Congress.
Foreign Aid
In 2011, roughly 20 percent of the U.S. federal budget was dedicated to defense and security-related international activities and about 1 percent went to non-security international spending or foreign aid. Discretionary national defense spending as a percentage of total federal spending has been steadily decreasing for decades (WashPost), and foreign aid spending was also trending downward until the Iraq war.
Foreign aid funds are often targeted for cuts because these programs don’t have a domestic constituency to protect them. And although public opinion surveys regularly show support (PDF) among a majority of Americans for development assistance abroad, legislators also seek to tap into sentiments by many voters that money should be prioritized on fixing problems at home.
Foreign aid funds are often targeted for cuts because these programs don’t have a domestic constituency to protect them.
“When you look at the Pentagon and its gargantuan budget, it’s likely that every single congressional district in the United States has either a U.S. military installation or a defense contractor,” said CFR’s Stewart Patrick of targeting foreign aid for cuts in 2011. The 2011 budget cut half a billion dollars (IPS) from foreign aid spending compared to baseline 2010 spending levels.
The version of the 2012 budget that Congress passed in late 2011 cut into President Obama’s foreign aid spending request by more than $8 billion.
Even after allocating funds, Congress can change course. Funding for Pakistan, for example, has been under fire. In 2011, Congress voted to withhold funds (WSJ) after the raid that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in a compound near Abbottabad caused a rift with Pakistan and after Pakistan cut off U.S. supply routes to Afghanistan. Since then, Congress has increased oversight of U.S. funds going to Pakistan (PDF), according to the Congressional Research Service.
Treaties and Trade
The executive branch negotiates treaties, which must be approved by a two-thirds Senate majority before they can be ratified. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee also can delay floor action on a treaty to encourage the White House to negotiate changes before it is willing to recommend approval.
The Senate can refuse to approve treaties, amend them, or attach reservations. In 1919 and 1920, the Senate famously refused to approve the Treaty of Versailles as negotiated by President Woodrow Wilson because of concerns that it would bind the United States to decisions made by the League of Nations and could supersede Congress’s power to declare war.
In the last two years of the Bush administration, ninety treaties were approved by the Senate, followed by a steep dropoff during the Obama administration, wrote CFR Adjunct Senior Fellow John B. Bellinger III in the Washington Post. One example is the Law of the Sea Convention, which codifies sovereign rights over marine resources and seeks to protect the world’s oceans. It was not approved by the Senate despite support from all military branches, major ocean industries, and many environmental groups.
Congress has also not acted on a number of economic treaties, notes CFR’s U.S. Trade and Investment Policy Task Force report from 2011. The report points out that the U.S. president has not had congressional negotiating authority since the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) expired in 2007. The report adds that under procedures approved in the 1974 Trade Act, “Congress agreed to consider trade agreements on an expedited schedule and to vote those agreements up or down without amendment. In exchange, it has promulgated extensive and often specific instructions for what should be included in those agreements and how it and private interests should be consulted during negotiation.”
While the system worked well initially, TPA has become a controversial process linked to the growing public unease over the impact of U.S. free trade policy on domestic jobs and business.
The president has the option of issuing an executive order to carry out treaties without Senate consent. Executive agreements constitute roughly 90 percent of all U.S. international agreements.
Human Rights and Trade
Beginning in the 1970s, congressional assertiveness institutionalized human rights within the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Notable among early legislation was the Jackson-Vanik amendment, attached to the Trade Act of 1974. The amendment specified that the Soviet Union must discontinue the practice of forcing Jews to pay exit fees to emigrate if it wanted favorable trade relations with the United States.
In December 2012, Congress voted to repeal Jackson-Vanik and grant permanent normal trade relations to Russia. But as part of the legislation, known as the Magnitsky Act, Congress attached measures restricting the travel of Russian officials found to have been connected with the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer, as well as other human rights violations. President Obama signed the legislation into law on December 14, 2012.
Declaring War
War-making powers are divided. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war, which it has done four times, the most recent being World War II. In a number of cases, such as Vietnam, the 1991 Gulf War, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Congress authorized the fighting.
The president, constitutionally authorized as commander-in-chief, has responsibility for leading the armed forces. Presidents have in numerous instances exercised their own authority to send U.S. troops into combat or into situations where hostilities were imminent.
Amid backlash against U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, overriding President Richard Nixon’s veto. Under that law, the president must consult with Congress before sending U.S. troops into hostile situations, report commitment of U.S. forces within twenty-four hours, and end military action within sixty days if Congress does not declare war or authorize the use of force. But in the decades since then, presidents have repeatedly denied the unconstitutionality of the law and exploited ambiguities in it.
The Congressional Research Service says that from 1975 to 2012, presidents submitted more than 130 reports related to deployment of U.S. forces (PDF) as required by the resolution, but just one–the 1975 Mayaguez incident–cited action triggering the time limit.
The 113th Congress
The foreign policy issues expected to create tension between President Obama and Congress in 2013 include tightening sanctions on Iran and monetary aid to Egypt (RollCall). Also on the list will be hearings on nominees for national security posts such as the secretary of state and the director of the CIA.
Besides aid to Egypt, funding for the Defense Department (HuffingtonPost) as well as State Department programs may become points of contention. Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee have voiced opposition (Politico) to any defense spending cuts and House Republicans’ vote against increased embassy security funding is likely to come up in relation to the Benghazi hearings.
While neither the House nor the Senate changed hands, there will be a number of [foreign policy] committee leadership changes.
While neither the House nor the Senate changed hands after the 2012 election, there will be a number of committee leadership changes. Josh Rogin writes in Foreign Policy that with influential leaders exiting and a new crop of national security lawmakers incoming, the result “could be a Congress that has less experience and fewer incentives to work across the aisle or cooperate with the executive branch, playing an increasing role of the spoiler in foreign policy.”
Congressional gridlock also stalled cybersecurity legislation in 2012. Also raising concern is the inability of Congress to reconcile competing committee jurisdictions on some crucial policy areas, such as homeland security, leading to worries that this is adversely affecting national security (HuffingtonPost).
In November 2012, outgoing Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), a longtime influential member of the Foreign Relations Committee, recommended in the National Interest that the president and congressional leaders work to “reestablish a closer working relationship on national security” to help “to undergird national unity in the event of severe crises, such as war with Iran or another catastrophic terrorist attack.”
Additional Resources
Congress’s inability to tackle tough problems, both domestic and international, has serious national security consequences, in part because it leads the world to question U.S. global leadership, writes Kay King, CFR’s former vice president for Washington initiatives, in a 2010 CFR special report on Congress.
Treaties remain “one of the best ways the United States can lead by example” and to “encourage political transformation in closed societies,” says CFR’s 2011 Independent Task Force Report on U.S. Trade and Investment Policy.
Norman J. Ornstein and Thomas C. Mann explore lapsing congressional oversight of the executive branch on foreign and national security policy, in Foreign Affairs.
Kirsti Itameri, Gayle S. Putrich, and Deborah Jerome contributed to this report.
New Council Special Report
Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies by Micah ZenkoThe author analyzes the potentially serious consequences, both at home and abroad, of a lightly overseen drone program and makes recommendations for improving its governance.
Subscribe to Foreign Affairs
Published by the Council on Foreign Relations since 1922
New Books
Invisible Armies by Max BootA complete global history of guerrilla uprisings through the ages. More
Tested by Zion by Elliott AbramsThe full inside story of the Bush administration and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More
Permissions Requests
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Author: Toni Johnson
August 23, 2012
Issue Guide: State of the Union
Author: Toni Johnson
Updated: January 25, 2011
Islam and the Midterm Elections
John C. Green interviewed by Toni Johnson October 19, 2010
U.S. Trouble with START and Other Treaties
John B. Bellinger III interviewed by Toni Johnson July 9, 2010

















[...] John Kerry: Much Ado About Nothing | elcidharth [...]
[...] John Kerry: Much Ado About Nothing | elcidharth [...]
[…] John Kerry: Much Ado About Nothing | elcidharth […]
[…] John Kerry: Much Ado About Nothing […]