August 1988, Page 12

Update on Congress

By Dennis J. Wamsted

Congress's Multibillion Dollar Arms Sale Blundering

Saudi Arabia's continuing inability to purchase weaponry from the United States—because of congressional kowtowing to the pro-Israel lobby—will cost domestic companies dearly. Specifically, on July 8, Saudi Arabia and Britain announced the signing of a 10-year arms sale agreement that is worth at least $30 billion and could be worth upward of $36 billion.

The terms of the pact were not formally released, but Britain will now certainly supplant the US as the kingdom's principal arms supplier. As for specifics, the package reportedly includes the sale to Saudi Arabia of an additional 100 advanced Tornado fighter aircraft, jet trainers, Black Hawk helicopters and minesweepers, as well as linked servicing and construction agreements. Ironically, the new package was announced almost exactly two years after Saudi Arabia signed an initial $8.5 billion contract for the purchase of 72 Tornado fighters from Britain.

Congress seems intent on forcing yet another moderate Arab nation to seek non-US weapons suppliers for its legitimate self-defense needs.

The Saudi decision to turn to Britain for self-defense weaponry requirements follows years of reflexive, virtually unthinking opposition from the Congress to arms sales to the gulf kingdom. The first large-scale Saudi-British contract in 1986, for example, was signed shortly after Congress rebuffed a Saudi bid to purchase US-manufactured F-15E jet aircraft. Since that first contract, Congress has also blocked Reagan administration proposals to sell Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and Maverick air-to-ground missiles to the Saudis.

The Administration's Alarm

The administration was rightfully, but perhaps belatedly, alarmed by the Saudi decision. "When we deem it as appropriate and necessary to provide weapons to our allies and friends in the world, we need to be very careful before we reject them too easily," White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said. "This is a $30 billion loss that American companies might well be slightly upset about." State Department spokeswoman Phyllis Oakley was more critical: "We think it does hurt our interests. We think that our interests are better served when we can sell self-defense items to friendly Arab countries."

Oakley's comments should be required reading for Israel's purported "friends" on Capitol Hill. Congress's refusal to sell F-15s to the Saudis in 1986-because of the alleged threat the planes would pose to Israel forced the gulf kingdom to purchase British-made Tornados. In the process, the Saudis secured the freedom to base the planes at its Tabuk air base in the northwestern corner of the country closest to Israel. Ironically, had the US agreed to sell F-15s to the Saudis, it would have retained some degree of control over the planes' basing.

Despite the clear precedent set by the Saudis, Congress seems intent on forcing yet another moderate Arab nation to seek non-US weapons suppliers for its legitimate self-defense needs. The Reagan administration formally submitted a $1.9 billion arms sale proposal to Kuwait on July 7. As proposed, the sale would include:

40 F-18 Hornet fighter-bombers;

40 Harpoon air-and sea-launched anti-ship missiles;

120 Sidewinder and 200 Sparrow air-to-air missiles;

300 Maverick air-to-ground missiles;

400 laser-guided bombs; and duster munitions.

The proposed sale is "a strong indication of the growing strength of the bilateral relationship" between the United States and Kuwait, two administration witnesses told the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East in early July testimony. The two countries have developed an increasingly close military relationship since the US Navy began escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the gulf a year ago, according to Peter Burleigh and Edward Gnehm, deputy assistant secretary of state and deputy assistant secretary of defense, respectively.

The Saudi decision to turn to Britain for self-defense weaponry requirements follows years of reflexive, virtually unthinking opposition from the Congress to arms sales to the gulf kingdom.

The arms request "is a fundamental part of Kuwait's program to upgrade its deterrent capability into the next century," Burleigh told the panel, which is chaired by Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN). "Kuwait faces current or future threats from air, land, and sea from more than one direction," he continued.

A similar theme was voiced by Secretary of State George Shultz in earlier testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. The sale is "something of a political breakthrough" in US-Kuwaiti relations, Shultz told the panel in June. Further, he said, the sale would in no way threaten Israel, particularly since the US will not sell the extra fuel tanks to Kuwait needed to extend the range of the F-18s.

Opposition Renewed

Despite the administration's pleas, the sale is strongly opposed in both houses of Congress. Indeed, the very day the administration formally notified Congress of its intentions, the Senate approved an amendment formally barring the sale of Maverick missiles to Kuwait.

The amendment was attached to the Senate's $14.3 billion foreign aid appropriations bill and approved by voice vote virtually without debate.

The House-passed appropriations bill, which was approved earlier, does not include a similar provision, leaving it up to a House-Senate conference committee to adopt or reject the ban. Ironically, Senate supporters of the ban, notably Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) argued that because the heat-seeking Maverick had been excluded from a previous sale to Saudi Arabia, it should also be removed from the proposed Kuwaiti sale. It was precisely this logic that ultimately forced Saudi Arabia to turn to Britain for its desired weaponry.

During the brief Senate floor debate on the issue, Sen. DeConcini asserted that even wider action was needed: "Quite frankly, it (the Maverick prohibition) does not go nearly as far as I feel is in the best interests of our nation, and that is to take a much closer look, have a debate, and, in my judgment, probably deny the sale of the F-18s to Kuwait." The Arizona Democrat added: "...a response of more and more weapons in there (the gulf region) is not in our best interests."

Targeting Kuwait

DeConcini's sentiments were echoed strongly by Pennsylvania's Specter. The Kuwaitis do not need the Maverick missiles, but "they do pose a real threat to Israel," he said. Further, the Jewish Republican added—albeit without a shard of evidence and without once mentioning the long-standing' categorical refusal of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to participate in a US-organized international peace conference—"Kuwait has been extremely hostile to the peace process in the Middle East."

The sole Senate dissenter during the brief debate was Minority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS). Formal notification of the proposal had come just hours earlier, Dole noted, "and yet the Senate has already moved to give a definitive judgment to this complex question. Whatever you think of this arms sale proposal ... this is just no way to 'run a railroad."'

Bad for Business

The Kansas Republican also questioned the business acumen of his Senate colleagues in voting against a portion of the Kuwaiti sale without serious consideration. Such action prompted the Saudis to turn to Britain for their weaponry, he noted, and, given the stakes involved, "we ought to at least give some serious thought to what we're doing."

Finally, Dole added, if the US refuses, Kuwait can always turn to other suppliers for similar weapons. "They are going to get equipment that is in many cases as good, or nearly as good as they can get from us; but without any controls on their use. What that can mean to the security of our friends in the region, especially Israel, is obvious."

The administration, undoubtedly surprised by the unexpected Senate ac. don, issued a quick reaction the following day. "Kuwait has come to the US and asked, as a friend, for the legitimate and necessary tools to provide for its own defense and to share with us the defense of the vital Persian Gulf. Congress has repeatedly asked what the gulf states are doing for their own defense." The answer, at least from Kuwait, the statement continued, is that it wishes to do more, and wishes to work with the US. Despite this expressed preference, "some in the Senate apparently wish to reject this request and have Kuwait turn elsewhere. "

A Lack of Debate

The lack of debate over the Senate-approved ban clearly demonstrates the fear generated by the pro-Israel lobby, orchestrated by the American/Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), particularly during a US election year. The prohibition was attached to an appropriations bill, normally reserved solely for the allocation of funds. However, the Kuwaiti missile ban involves no money—it is solely a policy matter.

Interestingly enough, later the same day the Senate hotly debated a proposal to strike down the District of Columbia's requirement that city employees live within city borders. A proposal by the four Virginia and Maryland senators to modify the requirement was strongly opposed by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), who chairs the DC appropriations subcommittee. "This is, indeed, legislation on an appropriations bill of the most blatant form," the Iowa Democrat charged. The proper means of dealing with this issue, he told his colleagues, would be to refer it to the proper authorizing committee. "That is the proper action to take...I assume that they would give it due regard and bring the bill out on the floor for debate."

Similar arguments could easily have been made against the proposed Maverick missile ban, which clearly involved attaching policy-specific legislation to an appropriations measure. Where Israel is concerned, however, legislative norms become meaningless.

The Congressional Outlook

True to precedent, congressional opposition to the Kuwaiti sale became evident even before it had been formally proposed. In a letter to Secretary of State Shultz in late June, for example, 20 senators—including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell (D-111) and a number of other staunchly pro-Israel senators such as Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN), and Paul Simon (D-IL)—expressed concern about "the numerical and symbolic quality of this arms sale package."

Similar concerns were voiced in the House, where 43 members signed a letter organized by Rep. Larry Smith (D-FL), perhaps the most outspoken pro-Israel member of the 100th Congress. "We believe that a sale of this nature is not in the long-term interest of the United States," the representatives wrote in a letter to President Reagan in late June. The letter also questioned the administration's overall regional arms sale policy.

Having failed to prevent the sale's formal proposal, which has become an increasingly popular tactic of the pro-Israel lobby, attention has now shifted to attempts in both the House and Senate to block the sale outright. Specifically, a joint resolution of disapproval is likely to be introduced in both houses.

However, it is unclear whether this joint resolution will be used as a bargaining tool, or whether an all-out effort will be made to derail the $1.9 billion sale proposal entirely. Two things, though, are certain: precedent supports the administration, since never before has Congress enacted such a resolution over presidential objection; and-Britain would undoubtedly step in to supply the market abandoned by the US.

Dennis J. Wamsted is a free-lance writer specializing in the US Congress and Middle East affairs.