As Arab States Move Into Compliance, Secondary Boycotts Imposed

by Shirl McArthur

As we anticipated in the previous Washington Report issue, the European Union made a second request Nov. 20 for a World Trade Organization dispute panel to determine whether America’s Helms-Burton law (Cuba sanctions) violates international trade rules. Although the U.S. refused the EU’s request when it first was made in October, under WTO rules a panel automatically is established upon a second request. Canada and Mexico, who have requested arbitration under NAFTA regarding Helms-Burton, said they also wanted to participate in the WTO panel as interested parties. A ruling is expected in about six months. In the meantime, the Europeans have adopted a policy statement saying that they will not expand relations with Cuba unless Cuba improves human rights conditions and moves toward democracy. This should give Clinton the cover he needs to extend the six-month waiver on enforcement of Helms-Burton when it comes up for renewal in January.

Although the broad issue of extraterritoriality is similar regarding both the Cuba law and Sen. Alphonse D’Amato’s bill imposing sanctions on companies investing in Iran and Libya, the D’Amato law involves different legal arguments from the Helms-Burton law. Therefore, the EU has not requested a WTO dispute panel regarding the D’Amato law at this time.

In fact, there are some signs that the combination of international hostility and U.S. oil industry pressure is beginning to have some effect on Clinton administration perceptions of the Iran/Libya legislation. Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary suggested in New York on Oct. 29 that the administration might try to find a way to resolve the dispute through further consultations within the oil industry and with the Europeans. On the same day, however, Senator D’Amato’s legislative director told a conference in London that D’Amato would press the administration to pursue perceived violators of the law, and that D’Amato may press for other, presumably even tougher, sanctions laws.

The U.S. may invoke the “national security” exemption in defense of Helms-Burton. If so, it will be the first time this exemption has been tested, and the U.S. will have to establish that Helms-Burton was an action “taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations.” This appears to be a stretch! However, if the WTO rules against the U.S., many jingoistic U.S. senators and representatives probably will seize on the ruling as an affront to national sovereignty.

However, the U.S. is not in a strong position to defend its own sanctions and boycotts. Under the headline, “U.S. To Oppose Saudi WTO Membership Unless Boycott Lifted,” the AIPAC publication Near East Report reported in its Nov. 4 issue that, in an exchange of letters with California Congressman Robert Matsui, Acting U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky called the Arab League boycott of Israel a “trade-distorting practice” that is “incompatible” with the provisions of the WTO.

The U.S. is not in a strong position to defend its sanctions and boycotts.

Barshefsky was responding to Matsui’s August inquiry about the USTR’s position toward Saudi Arabia’s application for WTO membership, considering Saudi participation in the boycott. Apparently indifferent to the contradictions of U.S. advocacy of secondary boycotts on Libya, Iran and Cuba and U.S. condemnation of secondary boycotts on Israel, Barshefsky said in her response that the U.S. made clear to the Kingdom in May that the boycott issue “would have to be resolved” or the U.S. would oppose Saudi admission into the WTO. She also said that it is her intention that Saudi accession to the WTOwhich is likely to become a model for the accession negotiations of other countries in the regioncomplies with the “full application of WTO provisions and principles.”

The Near East Report article did not mention that Saudi Arabia, as well as all other GCC members, announced in September 1994 that they no longer would apply the secondary and tertiary boycotts. Since neither WTO nor GATT prohibits primary boycotts, the GCC countries now will be in compliance with WTO and GATT rules. By contrast, since both the Helms-Burton and D’Amato laws amount to secondary boycotts, it appears that it is the United States that is in defiance of the rules of both organizations.

A First Look at the 105th Congress

At first glance, the 105th Congress does not look much different from the 104th. The Republicans lost a few seats in the House while retaining control, but they expanded their margin in the Senate by four votes. Furthermore, the new Republican senators are generally more conservative than the people they are replacing. Therefore, it is likely that the Senate will reclaim its traditional leadership role in promoting the congressional—in this case Republican—agenda.

However, it appears doubtful that Middle East issues will be high on that agenda. The consensus on Capitol Hill is that domestic issues will dominate the 105th Congress, unless major international crises erupt. The Clinton administration has never developed a cohesive foreign policy, and is unlikely to do so in the opening months of its second term, while the new secretary of state is assembling her team. Therefore, a reactive foreign policy will continue to invite dangerous miscalculation by both friends and adversaries, while Congress is unlikely to take any serious initiatives affecting the Middle East.

Although the House has announced most committee assignments, the Senate probably will not do so until early January. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) most likely will continue to chair the Foreign Relations Committee, although he is said to be considering switching chairmanships with Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) of the Agriculture Committee.

The most significant change for the Middle East is the retirement of Colorado Republican Sen. Hank Brown, chairman of the subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian affairs. Since Sen. Nancy Kassebaum (R-KS) also has retired, this leaves up in the air the question of who will take Brown’s place. It may be Senator Rod Grams of Minnesota, a first-term senator who previously served one term in the House. On the Democratic side, the ranking minority member, Sen. Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, also has retired, and there may be as many as four additional departures from the committee.

In contrast, there will be very little change in the House International Relations Committee. Congressmen Benjamin Gilman of New York and Lee Hamilton of Indiana will return as chairman and ranking minority member, respectively. The Republicans will replace four departing members (out of a total of 25 on the committee) and the Democrats will replace five departing members (out of a total of 20 on the committee).

The greatest loss will be that of Democratic Congressman Tom Moran of Virginia, who will be leaving the International Relations Committee to take a seat on the Appropriations Committee. Otherwise the election results are unlikely to have a significant effect on U.S. Middle East policy.

All four incumbent representatives of Arab ancestry, John Baldacci (D-ME), Pat Danner (D-MO), Ray LaHood (R-IL), and Nick Rahall (D-WV), were re-elected. In addition, two new Arab-American representatives were elected: Chris John (D-LA) and John Sununu, Jr. (R-NH).

Two New Arab-American Congressmen

Both of the newly elected Arab-American congressmen are of Lebanese ancestry. Chris John of Louisiana’s 7th District (Lafayette), will be only 37 when the new Congress convenes, but he already has been in politics for 22 years. He began at age 15 as an aide to his father, who was a member of the Louisiana State Legislature. He received his B.A. in business administration from LSU in 1982, the same year his father died in an auto accident. At age 24 he was elected to the Crowley City Council, and in 1987 he was elected to the state legislature, to the same seat his father had held.

Although a Democrat, John ran on a conservative, pro-business, pro-balanced-budget platform. He has said he would like to join the informal coalition of conservative “Blue Dog Democrats” in Congress. Prior to his arrival in Washington, John said he would like to serve on the Commerce or Resources Committees to better look out for Louisiana petroleum, intercoastal waterway, and agricultural interests. He got his wish. He was assigned to the Resources Committee (which gained one Democratic seat with the increased number of Democratic representatives).

John Sununu, Jr.,who was elected from New Hampshire’s 1st District (Manchester), only recently turned 31, and this is his first venture into politics. He received his B.S. and M.S. in mechanical engineering from MIT, and an M.B.A. from Harvard in 1987. Since then he has applied both disciplines, most recently as chief financial officer for a manufacturer of building automation systems in Manchester.

Of course, name recognition played a part in the victory by Sununu, whose famous father was governor of New Hampshire, served as President George Bush’s White House chief of staff, and now is a television commentator and host on CNN’s “Crossfire.”

Sununu Jr. campaigned on a platform of smaller government and lower taxes. He has been assigned to the House Budget Committee and the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.