Engagement Is a Constant In Kerry's Foreign Policy

Asked to summarize his foreign policy philosophy, Kerry emphasizes coalition-building: "American leadership, robust engagement, stronger alliances and greater cooperation resulting in advancing our interests more effectively." He noted that "I will never ever cede to any institution or any country a veto or a definition of those interests."

Kerry added that he is incensed at a Bush campaign ad saying he seeks U.N. approval to defend the United States. "Never. Never have. Never ever, ever in my life in the United States Senate have I ever ceded our authority to the U.N. or have I recommended it," he said. "Never. Not once in one vote; not in one speech. Never. That is a lie."

In 1997, Kerry wrote a book titled "The New War," which focused on how U.S. foreign policy was not addressing what Winer calls "the dark side of globalization." While the book identified the rise of fundamentalism and terrorist groups as one area of concern, it more narrowly focused on the rise of global organized crime. Kerry's interest in this issue was spawned by an investigation he led in the Senate of the scandal surrounding the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, as well as his participation in examining the Iran-contra affair.

In his speeches and writings over the years, Kerry has long stressed the need to work with allies and engage diplomatically with countries -- even governments distasteful to many Americans. Early in his Senate career, in 1985, he riled the Reagan administration by traveling to Nicaragua to meet with the Sandinista government, saying that "we've got to create a climate of trust." He was one of the leaders -- with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- in the successful effort to restore diplomatic relations with Vietnam in the 1990s.

More recently, Kerry has pushed for a diplomatic opening to Iran -- likening the problem in 2002 to one he faced when he pressed for normal relations with Vietnam -- and condemned the Bush administration for failing to continue direct talks on a range of issues with North Korea.

Stetson said that Kerry became so infuriated after learning that Bush was not interested in immediately following up on Clinton's discussions with North Korea on missile testing that he rushed to the floor of the Senate on March 8, 2001, to make a statement.

He declared that North Korea "took some remarkable steps, heretofore unimaginable steps" under a 1994 agreement with Clinton, and that the United States should not be "sending them a message that may, in fact, make it months later and far more difficult before we can do so." Bush ultimately agreed to talks, but by the time they were held in late 2002, it was learned that North Korea had violated the 1994 agreement, leading to the current nuclear crisis.

Kerry sidestepped a question when asked if there was any nation in which he would not have contacts. There are "all kinds of back channels, all kinds of ways of approaching something," he said. "But I think one way or the other, it is important to have a better sense of what's happening in some countries, and what the possibilities are for nurturing change, than this administration does."

Kerry in 2000 broke with Clinton's concept that China was a "strategic partner." In a long speech before the Woodrow Wilson Center, Kerry said, "China today cannot properly be deemed a strategic partner or a close friend, but it is not an enemy." He argued against trying to contain China, saying it is a "counterproductive and dangerous policy." But while he said engagement was necessary, serious differences over human rights and democracy prevent friendship between the two countries. The "strategic partner" rhetoric, he said, made engagement appear "naive and misguided."

In 1995, Kerry was one of 29 senators who voted against lifting an arms embargo on Bosnia. He argued the congressional action was unacceptably unilateral and had not been coordinated with European allies. Kerry, in this instance, supported the view of the Clinton administration, but he did not automatically provide his support, according to a White House official involved in legislative strategy on the vote.

"You could never take his vote for granted, but you'd hope he'd be with you if you made your case," said William Danvers, legislative liaison for the Clinton National Security Council. Danvers and other officials said Kerry helped persuade the Clinton administration to support normalization of ties with Vietnam, in part by winning a huge majority for a resolution calling on a trade embargo to be lifted.

The need to work closely with other nations in times of war was also a key part of Kerry's argument in two of his most controversial votes -- his opposition to a resolution authorizing force in the Gulf War and his support of a resolution supporting possible military action last year against Iraq.

When Kerry rose before the Senate on Jan. 11, 1991, to explain his vote against the Gulf War resolution, he charged that the George H.W. Bush administration had done too little to involve the rest of the world in its campaign to oust Iraq from Kuwait.

"Can it really be said that we are building a new world order when it is almost exclusively the United States who will be fighting in the desert, not alone but almost, displaying pride and impatience and implementing what essentially amounts to a pax Americana?" he asked. "Is that a new world order?"

Eleven years later, when Kerry discussed the resolution for last year's war against Iraq, his opinion of Bush's father's efforts had changed: He praised the coalition that had been formed for the Gulf War, in part to complain that the current president had thus far failed to secure the same level of cooperation.

Kerry ended up voting for the 2002 resolution, but warned he would not support the war if Bush failed to win the support of the international community in the absence of an imminent threat. The argument has allowed Kerry to suggest he favored the war at the time of the vote -- but also later become a critic of Bush's handling of the conflict. The Bush campaign has hit hard with the theme that Kerry repeatedly straddles issues and essentially flip-flops through his complicated stances.

Kerry said the floor speech reflected "no ambiguity whatsoever in that position and no nuance, just I think a smart, prescient position that saw the troubles down the road."

"Foreign policy is not simplistic," Kerry added. "They [Republicans] want it to be simplistic; it isn't. I can give you lots of non-nuanced positions. There is nothing nuanced about anything I've done."