Congress Acquiesces in Bombing of Iraq

By Shirl McArthur

Although the 105th Congress had concluded its final session when President Clinton decided to launch the bombing campaign against Iraq, the House was in session for the impeachment hearings, and the representatives took time off on Dec. 17 to pass a resolution “expressing unequivocal support for men and women of our armed forces currently carrying out missions in and around the Persian Gulf region.” Although the resolution did not specifically express support for the bombing campaign, it did “reaffirm that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussain from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

Only five members voted against the resolution: Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Mark Sanford (R-SC). Rep. Elizabeth Furse (D-OR) voted “present.” As might be expected, all five of those voting no were listed in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) “Hall of Fame” as not having co-sponsored or signed selected pro-Israeli resolutions or letters. Furse’s only lapse was to support the resolution decrying Israel’s lack of “equality” at the U.N.

Paul was the only congressman speaking out strongly against the resolution on the House floor. (It is worth noting that Paul also spoke against the planned military action against Iraq last February—see WRMEA April 1998 issue.) He said he could not support the resolution because it was an endorsement for an illegal war. Furthermore, he said that the notion that the U.S. can dictate the political leadership of a foreign country is immoral, and that the concept of sovereignty dictates that a people is responsible for its own leadership. Finally, he pointed out that even following “the amoral measure of ‘realpolitik,’ the policy of Saddam removal is unwarranted,” because if Saddam “were to be removed by force of U.S. efforts, we would face a very real risk to regional stability.

Senators Receive Less-Than-Satisfactory Reply to Letter About Iraqi Suffering

As reported in the WRMEA December 1998 issue, Senators Spencer Abraham (R-MI) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN) wrote to Clinton last October about the suffering imposed on Iraq’s civilian population as a result of the economic sanctions. Their letter urged Clinton to support quick approval of contracts for spare parts for Iraq’s oil industry, support improvements in monitoring and oversight mechanisms for movement and delivery of relief supplies to civilians, and streamline Treasury Department procedures hampering the delivery of humanitarian aid by U.S. charities and religious groups.

On Jan. 6 Clinton responded. The first half of his three-page letter was an effort to justify the December bombing campaign. He said the administration’s long-term strategy is to (1) “stand ready to use force again if Saddam takes threatening action such as seeking to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction, menacing his neighbors or his own Kurdish citizens, or challenging allied aircraft”; (2) work to keep the economic sanctions in place “so long as Iraq fails to live up to its obligations” while at the same time continuing to support the program to provide humanitarian supplies; and (3) “strengthen our engagement with Iraqis who want a new government.”

Finally, Clinton got around to addressing Abraham’s and Wellstone’s concerns. He said he supported speeding up the approval of contracts to generate increased revenues for Iraqi humanitarian assistance, and “we have taken steps to do just that.” However, he said, many of the contract requests for the oil industry would do little to increase oil production and would not help the average Iraqi citizen. He denied that there is a problem regarding the Treasury Department’s procedures to permit private U.S. organizations to deliver humanitarian aid. He concluded by saying, “We believe we have succeeded in improving the situation for the average Iraqi citizen, and have taken away Saddam’s weapon of starving his people.

106th Congress Organizes

Although both the House and the Senate had released their committee assignments when this issue of the WRMEA went to press, not all of the subcommittee assignments had been made. The few changes affecting the Middle East are already clear, however.

In the House, the retirement of Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), ranking minority member of the House International Relations Committee, was a major blow to U.S. interests in the Middle East. However, as discussed elsewhere (see p. 45), his replacement, Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-CT), although Jewish, has in the past appeared to try to be even-handed on Middle East issues and has not placed Israel’s interests above those of the U.S. For this he has even incurred the ire of the Israel lobby. Another major change was the election defeat of Jon Fox (R-PA), who was a member of the International Relations Committee and one of Israel’s strongest supporters. However, Joe Hoeffel (D-PA), who defeated Fox in the election, was named to the committee, and it remains to be seen what his position on Middle East issues will be.

In the Senate, the big changes are both on the Democratic side of the Foreign Relations Committee. The Republican members are the same, but Sens. Charles Robb (D-VA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) moved to other committees, being replaced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Robert Torricelli (D-NJ). Robb went to the Finance Committee (reportedly Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) felt that a seat on the higher-profile Finance Committee would help Robb in what looks to be a tough battle for re-election in 2000), and Feinstein went to the more prestigious Appropriations Committee.

In effect Boxer and Feinstein traded places, because Boxer was on the Appropriations Committee in the 105th Congress. Boxer has to see the move as a demotion, because she also lost her seat on the Banking Committee, but Torricelli can view the assignment positively, because it is an additional committee assignment. For the Middle East, the changes are probably a net loss, because both Robb and Feinstein were on the Near East and South Asia subcommittee and both seemed at least open-minded on Middle East issues and interested in promoting U.S. interests in the Middle East. The same cannot necessarily be said about Boxer and Torricelli.

In Brief

On Dec. 7, three of Israel’s staunchest supporters, all Republicans, circulated a letter to their colleagues “urging the President to reassert the opposition of the United States to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.” The three, Tom DeLay (TX), Matt Salmon (AZ), and Jim Saxton (NJ), said that the president must “publicly and unequivocally state that the United States will not recognize and will actively oppose any unilaterally declared Palestinian State,” and they reminded their colleagues that last October they had introduced a resolution to this effect, and said they will reintroduce a new version of the same resolution early in this Congress.

On Dec. 1, Senator Abraham, joined by six other senators, wrote to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright urging her to maintain the U.S. commitment to provide Lebanon $12 million in aid each fiscal year. They said that, in the face of demands on Economic Support Funds, the funding level for Lebanon should be maintained even if it means substituting other funds for ESF money. The other five signing the letter were Sens. Bob Graham (D-FL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and Bob Kerrey (D-NE).

Also regarding Lebanon, two Arab-American congressmen, Reps. Ray LaHood (R-IL) and Nick Rahall (D-WV), visited Lebanon Nov. 22 to 25, accepting the invitation previously given to then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) to attend the swearing in of Lebanon’s new president, Emile Lahoud. Rahall said they were impressed with Lahoud’s businesslike manner and emphasis on attacking corruption, and they were also impressed with the amount of progress that has been made toward Lebanon’s reconstruction.

Last August, Senators Abraham and Kennedy wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno and INS Commissioner Doris Meissner expressing their concerns over the use of “secret evidence” by the INS in immigration proceedings, and especially “the appearance that the INS may be using secret evidence only in cases against Arab immigrants.” Finally, on Nov. 19 they received a response, from Acting Assistant Attorney General L. Anthony Sutin. As might have been expected, Sutin’s response was disappointing. He said that Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder is overseeing “a thorough review of the regulations and policies relating to the use of such evidence,” but he defended its use. Furthermore, he denied that Arabs or Muslims are being singled out, saying that in recent years classified information has been used against people from the Indian subcontinent, the Caribbean, and the former Soviet Union.

As expected, President Clinton signed in late November the waiver on sanctions against the PLO, as called for in the Omnibus Appropriations bill passed in October (see WRMEA December issue). The waiver, which effectively renews the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, is valid through May 24, 1999, and is renewable for an additional six months.

Despite opposition from Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control Charles Grassley (R-IA) and House International Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), Clinton removed Iran from the list of drug problem countries on Dec. 7. Clinton said that Iran has carried out a successful program to eradicate opium poppy cultivation and that, while Iran has not completely eliminated the transit of drugs, there is no evidence to suggest that significant quantities are arriving in the U.S. from Iran.

Shirl McArthur, a retired foreign service officer, is a senior consultant with Bruce Morgan Associates, an international research and consulting firm in the Washington, DC area.