"Make the world better."

This was the deathbed plea of the early abolitionist and champion of women's rights, the Massachusetts native Lucy Stone, who urged her daughter to carry on her dream.

Today we remember Lucy Stone as a voice of conscience. We sometimes forget that she was also an entrepreneur who raised enough money to start the weekly suffrage newspaper, the Woman's Journal, which she co-edited with her husband.

Ever since then, many have carried on Lucy Stone's mission of working to level the playing field for women. Though the movement has come a long way, its promise has not yet been perfected. As long as women are making only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, the march isn't over.

This week, we held a roundtable to examine the hurdles that women entrepreneurs face and examine solutions we can take - at the federal and state level - to empower women to overcome these hurdles and achieve business success.

Empowering women entrepreneurs isn't just imperative for the sake of equal opportunity - it is important because harnessing the full talents of all our citizens contributes to our overall economic development, alleviates poverty, and increases America's competitiveness.

This is true of economies everywhere - which is why, last week, Goldman Sachs announced a $100 million project to educate 10,000 women globally about business. Studies have found that educating women leads to higher wages, better health, and improved economic returns.

What's true in Bangalore is true in Boston: America's economic development can be strengthened by investing in women entrepreneurs. Today there are nearly eight million women-owned businesses in our country. They employ over seven million people and generate $1.1 trillion in sales each year. Here in Massachusetts, nearly 190,000 women-owned businesses contribute $30 billion to the economy and employ more than 177,000 people.

This is an economic trend we should be nurturing: Over the last decade, the number of women-owned businesses in the Bay State has increased by 43 percent - nearly double the growth of all firms.

That's the glass-half-full picture. Unfortunately, despite the steps taken, miles are still to be traveled: women-owned small businesses are smaller and have fewer employees than their male counterparts. Just three percent of women-owned firms generate $1 million or more in revenue, while six percent of men-owned businesses do. Only 16 percent of all firms with employees are owned by women. Even in federal procurement, women-owned firms receive just 3.4 percent of all contract dollars.

At the top levels in government, some assume the smug sensibility that the challenges women face have been solved. They haven't. Look no further than the fact that women entrepreneurs so far this year have received only 17 percent of small business loan amounts that are backed by the federal government. Fewer women are able to sell their goods and services to the federal government. Remarkably, the Bush Administration claims that women are underrepresented in just four out of more than 140 categories they use for federal contracting.

Women have overcome many obstacles since Lucy Stone's day, but barriers remain in their way. Will we pick up Lucy Stone's standard and lift up those remaining barriers? We should need no more motivation than to remember that with women heading almost one in four households with children under 18, women's success in business directly benefits our children and our entire society.

One way to at last fulfill Lucy Stone's final command and "make the world better": help people just like her - women entrepreneurs.

John Kerry is the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Pam Richardson represents 11 precincts in Framingham and serves on the Housing, Mental Health & Substance Abuse, and Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities Committees.

The Lowell Sun: Still awaiting justice

By John Kerry | March 22, 2008

Last month marked the 10-year anniversary of the death of Pol Pot, a brutal and cruel figure who died peacefully in a small wooden hut in northern Cambodia without ever being forced to answer for his role in the death of nearly 2 million Cambodians in the Killing Fields. We also recently mourned the death of Cambodian photojournalist Dith Pran, whose inspiring story of surviving those bloody years was a triumph of the human spirit amid one of history's darkest chapters.

Thirty years after these atrocities shocked the world's collective conscience, time is running out if the perpetrators are ever to be held accountable. The survivors still yearn to see justice served.

America and the international community must act now to support Cambodia's war crimes tribunal.

Coming to grips with the past is necessary to building a better future for the Cambodian people -- but after so many years of impunity, much work remains to restore the rule of law. Even today, human-rights abuses plague the country. Holding the worst offenders from the Khmer Rouge to account for their crimes will lay to rest a legacy of lawlessness and brutality. It will also send an important message to leaders of genocidal regimes like the one in Sudan, and brutal dictatorships like those in Burma and Zimbabwe, that the worst crimes will not go unpunished.

It was for these reasons that America helped the Cambodian government form a special court to try senior Khmer Rouge leaders. Of all the work I've been a part of on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am especially proud to have played a key role in the tribunals' creation -- traveling to Cambodia time and again to help find a compromise structure that was acceptable to both the United Nations and the Cambodian government.

In the end, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), was set up less than two years ago in Cambodia's capital city, Phnom Penh. Today, this hybrid court, where Cambodian and international judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, and court staff work side by side with the Cambodian government, is finally prepared to begin its first trials of five of the most senior Khmer Rouge leaders who -- next to Pol Pot himself -- were most responsible for the killing fields.

Unfortunately, after several stops and starts, the court faces a looming financial crisis -- indeed, there is a real danger that the ECCC will collapse before it even gets off the ground. Direct American support is needed. Unfortunately, since we helped to broker the agreement between the U.N. and the Cambodian government to establish the tribunal, the United States has declined to support the court politically or financially.

Make no mistake, our reticence has stemmed in part from reasonable concerns about the independence of the process and apparent financial improprieties. However, today most of these issues have been addressed, and the best way to ensure a legitimate process going forward is to get our country more involved in the court.

With American backing, we can use our financial leverage to improve the process. Specifically, our involvement could effect higher standards of transparency, independence, integrity, more effective witness protection, meaningful victim participation, and adequate anti-corruption measures. We can also assist ongoing U.N. efforts to ensure that the trials proceed fairly. That's why I have proposed a modest contribution of about $2 million, dedicated to support the victims' rights and witness protection programs run by the United Nations.

Recent history in places like Rwanda and Yugoslavia has shown that U.S. leadership can make the crucial difference in the search for post-conflict justice. Other international donors have been carrying the burden without us for years -- and many are now beginning to suffer from "tribunal fatigue." Even a minimal U.S. contribution of $2 million would help mobilize others to increase their support, while sending a message to the people of Cambodia and the world that America stands strongly behind our principles.

Cambodians have already waited too long for justice. Many children today have no recollection of their country's torturous past -- and some even doubt that the atrocities ever happened. Day by day, survivors die without seeing any accountability for the horrors that were committed, and without lending their voices to the record of history. A successful tribunal for Cambodia will continue the essential process that began with the Nuremberg trials of setting a standard for accountability and sending a message that the world will never forget.

Time is running out for Cambodia to make peace with its history. They need our help. As Dith Pran said, "The dead are crying out for justice." We must do our part to make sure that these cries are finally heard.

Sen. John Kerry has represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate since 1984.

WP: The Wisdom In Talking

By John F. Kerry | March 24, 2008

As President Bush commemorated Israel's 60th anniversary by attacking Barack Obama from overseas, here at home he found an all-too-frequent ally: John McCain.

When Bush accused "some" -- including Obama, Bush aides explained -- of "the false comfort of appeasement," McCain echoed this slander.

"What does he want to talk about with [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?" McCain asked, fumbling to link Obama to the Iranian president's hateful words. Soon, a GOP talking point was born.

Lost in the rhetoric was the question America deserves to have answered: Why should we engage with Iran?

In short, not talking to Iran has failed. Miserably.

Bush engages in self-deception arguing that not engaging Iran has worked. In fact, Iran has grown stronger: continuing to master the nuclear fuel cycle; arming militias in Iraq and Lebanon; bolstering extremist anti-Israeli proxies. It has embraced Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and spends lavishly to rebuild Afghanistan, gaining influence across the region.

Instead of backing Bush's toxic rhetoric, McCain should have called George H.W. Bush's secretary of state, James Baker. After years of stonewalling, the administration grudgingly tested the Baker-Hamilton report's recommendation and opened talks with Iran -- albeit low-level dialogue restricted to the subject of Iraq. Is James Baker an appeaser, too?

While the president attacks political opponents from the Knesset, responsible members of his own administration meet face to face with Iranians. Yes, Ahmadinejad's words often are abhorrent, and often Iran has played a poisonous role in Middle East politics. But when our ambassador to Iraq meets with his Iranian counterpart, he isn't courting "the false comfort of appeasement" -- he is facing the reality that Iran exerts influence in Iraq. That's why Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have called for engaging Iran. Appeasers all? Nonsense.

Direct negotiations may be the only means short of war that can persuade Iran to forgo its nuclear capability. Given that a nuclear Iran would menace Israel, drive oil prices up past today's record highs and possibly spark a regional arms race, shouldn't we be doing all we can to avoid that conflagration?

Opponents of dialogue often quip that talking isn't a strategy. Walking away isn't a strategy, either. McCain says that "there's only one thing worse than the United States exercising the military option, that is, a nuclear-armed Iran." But for all his professed reluctance, when McCain disavows diplomacy, he is stacking the deck in favor of war.

What might we achieve by talking with Iran? Some say our engagement to date has not been productive -- but a less half-hearted and less conditional approach might well break the stalemate. We won't know until we try.

Dialogue helps us isolate Ahmadinejad rather than empowering him to isolate us. More important, even if we fail to reach an agreement, engaging Iran will spark three conversations likely to strengthen our position.

The first is between our leaders and Iran's. From nonproliferation to counterterrorism, frankly, Iran won't care for much of what we have to say -- but at the right moment, it is not unreasonable to think Tehran would cut a deal in exchange for economic incentives, energy assistance, diplomatic normalization or a noninvasion guarantee.

Second is the conversation America's president should be having with the Iranian people. We should seize the chance to tell some of the region's most pro-American people how their own president has isolated them, denying their great culture its place in the world and the region a constructive dialogue.

There's a reason the late Tom Lantos, Congress's only Holocaust survivor and a formidable diplomat, applied for a visa to enter Iran every year for the last decade of his life. What better way to puncture the petty lies of a demagogue than to force him to confront a man who has lived the very history he denies and trivializes?

Some have asserted that meeting with Iran's leaders would legitimize Ahmadinejad, who is neither Iran's supreme leader nor someone whom Obama specifically promised to meet. Curiously, many critics then hype Ahmadinejad as a threat of historic proportions, thereby granting the stature they seek to deny. Iranian elections in mid-2009 could yield a less objectionable president; engaging Iran makes that more likely.

The third conversation is with the world. By engaging Iran, we reclaim the moral high ground -- no small feat. If Iran refuses to budge, we have new leverage to expose it as a threat whose bad intentions cannot be explained away.

Those who say they take no option off the table should not put America in a straitjacket by denouncing diplomacy.

As Iran's centrifuges churn out enriched uranium, we're asking the wrong question. Instead of wondering why Barack Obama wants to talk with Iran, we should ask: "What are George Bush and John McCain waiting for?"

The writer is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302170_pf.html


WSJ: It's Time to Talk to Syria
By John Kerry and Chuck Hagel | June 5, 2008

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, President George H.W. Bush did the improbable and convinced Syrian President Hafez Assad to join an American-led coalition against a fellow Baathist regime.

Today, these leaders' sons have another chance for a diplomatic breakthrough that could redefine the strategic landscape in the Middle East.

The recent announcement of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria through Turkey, and the agreement between the Lebanese factions in Qatar – both apparently without meaningful U.S. involvement – should serve as a wake-up call that our policy of nonengagement has isolated us more than the Syrians. These developments also help create new opportunities and increased leverage that we can only exploit through substantive dialogue with Syria.

Syria's leaders have always made cold calculations in the name of self-preservation, and history shows that intensive diplomacy can pay off. Secretary of State James Baker made more than a dozen trips to Syria before Operation Desert Storm, and remember President Assad's price: U.S. support for Syrian dialogue with Israel. The ultimate challenge – moving Syria away from its marriage of convenience with Iran – will certainly not happen overnight. But it's telling that Iran lobbied Syria not to negotiate with Israel and that Syria decided to proceed regardless.

To support Israel and isolate Iran, President George W. Bush should offer direct support for the Israeli-Syrian initiative. Promoting peace between our ally and its neighbors has always been a bipartisan cornerstone of our foreign policy. Syria views peace talks with Israel as part of a broader rapprochement with America, and its strong desire for U.S. involvement can work to our advantage. We know that high level, direct talks will require a sustained and credible American role, just as they did in 2000, when President Bill Clinton met repeatedly with Mr. Assad in bringing Syria and Israel to the brink of a deal. With so much at stake, it's in our interests to come to the table again.

The agreement by the Lebanese parties provides another opening. Syria must respect Lebanon's sovereignty and end its deadly meddling. But the fact that Syria's ally, Hezbollah, secured much of the political power it sought should remove Syria's excuse for failing to open an embassy, normalize relations, and finally demarcate the border with Lebanon. Hezbollah must eventually be disarmed, as United Nations Resolutions 1559 and 1701 require, but its agreement not to use force internally could be used to push Syria to shut off the supply of weapons.

Dialogue can open the door for greater cooperation on Iraq. Top Syrian officials have argued that Syria shares America's interest in a stable, secular Iraq and does not want a strongly pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. Our partnership with Sunni tribes against al Qaeda may have further aligned our interests. As U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has noted, Islamic extremists also threaten Syria.

While Syria must crack down on the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claims positive steps have not been rewarded. We should test whether offering tangible benefits brings better results, starting with providing more humanitarian assistance for the nearly 1.5 million Iraqi refugees Syria has absorbed.

The U.N. tribunal investigating the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which may soon issue indictments, is also creating pressure on the regime. If government officials are implicated, Syria could face increased international sanctions. The tribunal's pursuit of justice must never be a bargaining chip, but it adds an incentive to improve relations that we should capitalize on.

Tough economic times in Syria also create leverage. Although domestic oil production accounts for 60%-70% of the country's exports, Syria became a net oil importer in 2007. With a growing population, greater integration into the global economy and an easing of sanctions could be powerful incentives.

Make no mistake: Cooperation with Syria rests not on shared values, but on shared interests. Syria's pursuit of a suspected nuclear program underscores why any agreement must be verified. While many doubt Syria's intentions, we have real leverage and some inducements that have more value to Syria than cost to us. There is no guarantee of an agreement, but the potential payoff is huge, and our current policy is failing.

Israel's government has concluded that, rather than rewarding bad behavior, dialogue with Syria is the best hope for changing it. As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, "the chance overrides the risk, and with this hope I am going for a new path." We should do the same before the opportunity slips away.

Mr. Kerry, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Massachusetts. Mr. Hagel, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Nebraska.