The 105th Congress Convenes

by Shirl McArthur

When Congress reconvened in early January, little significant work was scheduled before the Jan. 20 inauguration except for the new Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Jan. 8 hearing on the appointment of Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State. The hearing was every bit as saccharine as reported in the press, leaving no doubt that she would be confirmed easily.

Although foreign policy differences between the administration and Congress were glossed over during the hearing, it was apparent that these differences will not take long to surface. There is strong sentiment among Republicans on the committee to resurrect the proposal to dismantle certain foreign affairs agencies, including AID and the USIA, and fold their functions into the State Department. There also appears to be strong resistance within the committee against fulfilling the U.S. obligation to pay some $1.3 billion in U.S. debts to the U.N.

Another agency that appears to be endangered is the Department of Energy. President Bill Clinton’s nomination of outgoing Transportation Secretary Federico Peøato be the new energy secretary has fueled speculation about Clinton’s willingness to fight to save the department. Because Peøa has no credentials in any of the areas under the Energy Department’s jurisdiction, some people have speculated that he was chosen not only because he is Hispanic, but also for his administrative abilities, so that he could preside over the dismantling of the department.

Middle East issues do not appear to be high on the agenda of the 105th Congress. Although the Senate’s subcommittees have not been formed as we go to press, by all indications the chairman of the Senate Middle East subcommittee is likely to be one of the three freshman Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee (see below).

AIPAC Pleased With Elections

AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr was justifiably pleased with the organization’s efforts during the 1996 elections, pointing out that “AIPAC is the only grassroots organization that met with every new member of Congress.” Furthermore, AIPAC managed, in one way or another, to get 90 percent of the new freshman class to issue statements supporting Israeli positions on one or more key issues.

All of the 15 new senators expressed support for continuing foreign aid to Israel at present levels, and 13 of the 15 specifically supported the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act. The other two, Republicans Sam Brownback of Kansas (replacing Bob Dole) and Gordon Smith of Oregon (replacing Mark Hatfield), issued statements supporting the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Both of these statements appear to be carefully worded, possibly indicating that Brownback and Smith might be prepared to maintain open minds on Middle East issues. Interestingly, both Brownback and Smith are among the new members of the Foreign Relations Committee, and one of them might well become the chairman of the Middle East subcommittee.

"AIPAC is the only grass-roots organization that met with every new member of Congress.”

One of the new senators, Richard Durbin (D-IL), owes his political career to AIPAC, since he was the beneficiary of AIPAC’s blitzkrieg to defeat Representative Paul Findley in 1982. By his actions and his votes in the House of Representatives, Durbin has shown that he fully understands his obligations to AIPAC and to Israel. He co-sponsored the Embassy Relocation Act, and during the campaign issued a statement saying that “the challenges to Israel’s security…are also challenges to the security of the United States.”

Members of the pro-Israel community have even met with the two new Arab-American members of Congress, Chris John (D-LA) and John Sununu Jr. (R-NH), and received expressions of support for the U.S.-Israeli relationship from both. John reportedly expressed his support for foreign aid for Israel and for the Iran-Libya Foreign Oil Sanctions Act. Sununu reportedly spoke in favor of the Embassy Relocation Act.

Helms-Burton Waiver Only Half a Loaf

President Clinton on Jan. 3 suspended indefinitely the most controversial provision of the Helms-Burton Act imposing sanctions on Cuba. Both the Helms-Burton Act and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (the D’Amato Act) have caused major friction with U.S. allies because they attempt to impose U.S. policies and tactics on third parties.

In early December, the European Union moved closer to the U.S. position on Cuba by adopting a policy linking expanded ties with Cuba to improvement in Cuba’s human rights conditions. The suspended provision of Helms-Burton, Title III, is the most objectionable because it would give U.S. citizens the right to sue in U.S. courts foreign companies “trafficking” in expropriated property.

In a press release, the European Commission welcomed Clinton’s move, but pointed out that it was only a step in the right direction, because of the extraterritorial reach of other parts of the law. In response to the Washington Report’s question, EU spokesperson Ella Krucoff said that Clinton’s action would have no effect on EU-initiated dispute procedures currently under way with the World Trade Organization, because Helms-Burton clearly violates WTO rules.

We asked Krucoff whether these EU-U.S. attempts to reach at least partial accommodation concerning the Helms-Burton Act might imply similar actions concerning the D’Amato Act, especially considering that the recently issued State Department guidelines on implementation of the D’Amato Act appear to give Clinton a measure of flexibility. Krucoff said there is no connection between the EU’s approaches to the two laws, except that the EU objects to the extraterritorial features that both contain. Krucoff specifically said that she has seen no signs that the EU is considering changing its policy toward Iran and Libya, since it continues to believe that a policy of dialog ultimately will be more fruitful than a policy of isolation.

Speaking of Iran…

There has been considerable speculation in the mainstream press that the Clinton administration will soon undertake a full review of its policy toward Iran, implying a possible softening of that policy. At least two publications have presented this as fact rather than speculation. However, although there is widespread dissatisfaction with U.S. policy toward Iran in U.S. academic, business, and even diplomatic circles, we cannot find any basis for this speculation.

Apparently, the story was touched off by a statement in Dubai by retiring Assistant Secretary of State Bob Pelletreau that the U.S. would be prepared to open a dialog with Iran under certain conditions. Although there was nothing new in Pelletreau’s statement, people began looking for, and finding, possible signs of a review of U.S. Iran policy. Similarly, some thought the loose wording in the recent State Department guidelines on implementation of the D’Amato Act implied a future loosening of the sanctions. Others pointed to the fact that at her Senate confirmation hearing Madeleine Albright said nothing about Iran, even though in her prepared statement she managed to cover most other parts of the world as well as most major international issues.

However, although it would be prudent for a new secretary of state to order a formal review of all major foreign policy issues, we do not foresee any change in U.S. policy toward Iran. In the first place, neither the U.S. nor Iran has given any sign that it is willing to make any conciliatory move.

Senior Clinton administration officials appear convinced that Iran is directly involved in ordering and paying for actions that the U.S. defines as “terrorist.” Similarly, senior Iranian officials continue to charge that the U.S. is both arrogant and untrustworthy. Therefore, even if a State Department review were to recommend a modification of U.S. policy toward Iran, it would raise a firestorm in Congress, where being “tough on Iran” is very popular. This clearly is not an issue over which the Clinton administration would be prepared to pick a fight with Congress.

Jerusalem, Capital of Israel?

There was some consternation at the working levels of the U.S. government last year when the Senate added a section to H.R. 3540, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill (which had already passed the House) mandating that all U.S. government publications must refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. However, in conference wiser heads prevailed, and the offending section was dropped. Instead, the accompanying conference report says conferees agreed that all U.S. government publications should (our emphasis) refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Conference reports are not law, but simply an expression of congressional intent, and to date we have seen no reference in any U.S. government publication to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.