Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October/November 1997, Pages 27-28

Special Report

Congressional Hearings Target Middle East

By Shirl McArthur

Senate Looks at Arms to Iran

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Sam Brownback held hearings April 17 and May 6 on the proliferation of arms sales to Iran. At the April hearing, Brownback's objective apparently was to establish first that, in spite of previous congressional efforts, Iran has been successful in getting a variety of sophisticated conventional weapons, as well as chemical and nuclear technology and, in some cases, material; and second that the administration had avoided applying the sanctions already enacted by Congress. However, what the hearing actually accomplished was to affirm what most people already know: unilateral sanctions are clumsy and ineffective and, without the cooperation of its friends and allies, the U.S. cannot by itself prevent Iran from acquiring sophisticated weapons.

Witnesses included Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY), Acting Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Proliferation Robert Einhorn, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and Leonard Spector, director of the nuclear non-proliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In his opening statement, Brownback pointed out that only twice "in recent memory" has President Clinton invoked the laws passed by Congress to sanction countries selling missile or nuclear weapons technology to Iran, and that neither case involved either Russia or China, the two main offenders.

D'Amato aimed most of his fire at "our allies [who] are providing Iran and Libya with the hard currency enabling them to fund their aggression and are contributing to the menace of terrorism." He warned the administration about the recently concluded agreement with the European Union regarding the implementation of the Helms-Burton Act (sanctions on Cuba) and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. He pointed out that the agreement says the U.S. will work with the EU toward granting EU countries and companies waivers under the provisions of the Act. He cautioned the administration that "any suggestion that the European Union should be granted a blanket waiver without following the stipulations of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act is a mistake."

Welch acknowledged that the non-proliferation and sanctions acts already passed by Congress have had little tangible impact on Iran. However he belittled the European approach of "dialogue" with Iran and expressed the hope that Europeans eventually would follow U.S. leadership to enact "measures that impose a tangible cost on Iran."

Neither D'Amato nor Welch seemed to care that D'Amato's aggressiveness and the administration's preachiness (which so enraged Europe and Japan at the Denver summit) would be seen as arrogance in Europe, and would be unlikely to achieve the intended result.

The second, May 6, hearing was entitled "The Arming of Iran: Who is Responsible?" It was obvious that Brownback had already decided the answer was Russia and China, and had invited a group of three distinguished experts to provide the details: Dr. Gary Bertsch, director of the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia; Dr. Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control; and Dr. Seth Carus from the National Defense University in Washington, DC. Although the three witnesses provided details of various Russian, Chinese and North Korean arms sales and technology transfers to Iran, they disagreed over the advisability of further sanctions, especially unilateral sanctions.

Administration officials were invited to participate, but declined. Brownback implicitly supplied the reason for this in his opening statement, saying "it is little wonder the Europeans pay the U.S. no heed on what to do about Iran. They see us pushing our own companies around, but continuing to coddle" Russia and China. "The message we are sending could not be clearer: cutting off Iran's access to arms and weapons of mass destruction is less important to us than maintaining good relations with Russia and China."

Senate Focuses on Religious Persecution in Middle East

Brownback's subcommittee also held two hearings on "Religious Persecution in the Middle East," on May 1 and June 10. The leading witnesses in the first hearing were Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Steven Coffey, principal deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor. In the second hearing, leading witnesses were Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and former Secretary of Education William Bennett, who currently is a co-director of Empower America.

In both of his opening statements, Brownback emphasized that he did not want to look only at the extent to which Christians are persecuted, but also at persecution of members of other religious minorities, including Muslim minorities. He made a point, especially in the first hearing, of saying that the problem of religious persecution does not come from another theology, but from "the actions of individuals and governments who do not value freedom of worship for all." Wolf and Coffey made the same point in their presentations.

Wolf said that, although Islam is the predominant religion in the Middle East, he was not condemning Islam or Muslims, but rather "governments or radical militants who persecute and oppress people." However, these ameliorating statements apparently fell on deaf ears as far as the other witnesses were concerned. All seemed to have been selected to turn the hearings into a recitation of evils perpetrated by Muslims against Christians in the region. Bat Ye'or, a Jewish woman born in Egypt, insisted that persecution of other religions is an Islamic requirement. With no one in the room competent to challenge her novel interpretations of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and shariah, they are now part of the record.

Wolf's testimony aimed at generating support for the "Freedom From Religious Persecution" bill (H.R. 1685) that he has introduced in the House. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has introduced a companion bill in the Senate. The Wolf/Specter proposals would establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring in the White House, require the office to send an annual report to Congress, and impose specific sanctions on those countries named in the report as engaging in religious persecution. Four of the bill's 15 pages of text detail sanctions against Sudan. However, the scope of the bill is worldwide, specifically mentioning Cuba, Laos, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Tibet in addition to Sudan and "many Islamic countries" that allegedly persecute non-Muslims. In response to a question from Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), Wolf said that in addition to persecuting Catholics, China systematically persecutes some 50 to 80 million Muslims in northwest China, "and nobody is speaking up for them."

Testifying for the State Department, Coffey described the various reports to Congress that the State Department already prepares and said that he did not believe new legislation, or the creation of a new office, is necessary.

House Hearing on "Lebanon"

The House International Relations Committee, chaired by Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), held a hearing on June 25 whose announced subject was "U.S. Policy Toward Lebanon." It was clear from Gilman's opening statement, however, that his real interest was "U.S. Policy Toward Syria."

"Above all, our committee is concerned about the basic issue that characterizes Lebanon today, and that is the effect of Syria's continuing military occupation," Gilman said. He also mentioned, almost in passing, that the hearing would review the State Department's travel ban and Lebanon's economic reconstruction program.

Gilman's only questions for the State Department witness, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch, concerned the Syrian occupation. Welch responded with the mantra that the Clinton administration has been using ever since it began actively encouraging Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad to make peace with Israel: The U.S. is committed to Lebanon's sovereignty and considers Lebanon an independent state; it is up to the Lebanese government to determine its relationship with Syria.

Except for former hostage Terry Anderson and American Task Force for Lebanon founder Peter Tanous, Gilman had packed the witness panels with people hostile to Syria. These included Dr. Daniel Pipes, Daniel Nassif from the Council of Lebanese American Organizations, and former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel. Another known opponent of the present government, former Gen. Michel Aoun, had been invited but could not appear because his request for a visa was turned down by the State Department. (House sources said that if Aoun appeared, the State Department witnesses would not.)

In his testimony, Pipes described in some detail the various "levers of power" that Syria exercises over Lebanon. He said this results in complete subservience of the Lebanese government to Syria, serious deterioration of human rights and freedom of the press, and an increase in the number of Lebanese Christians leaving the country. He recommended that Congress send "a direct message to the tyrants in Damascus by such means as the Engel Amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (see "Congress Watch") urging President Clinton to consider applying to Syria the same sanctions that are applied against Iran and Libya; close the "national interest" loopholes that permit the executive branch to waive certain regulations; and, finally, turn away any Lebanese requests for financial assistance on the grounds that any money to the Lebanese government "will ultimately end up in Mr. Assad's pocket."

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), in particular, took exception to Pipes's last recommendation, asking what such punishment of Lebanon would accomplish. Pipes said it would send the message that the U.S. government does not recognize the government of Lebanon because it is under complete control of Syria. Rahall asked whether that would include the Lebanese army, and Pipes replied that it would, because he believes the Lebanese army to be an arm of the Syrian government.

Nassif's testimony continued in the same vein as Pipes', but in stronger terms and with more emphasis on alleged corruption "plaguing Lebanon today." He said "the State itself is the largest Mafia in the land." This was too much for Rahall, who called Nassif's testimony "extreme," and said he was personally offended by it. He asked if Nassif, like Pipes, would recommend no aid to Lebanon. Nassif said that money for Lebanon should increase, but rather than going to the government it should go to the various nongovernmental organizations active in Lebanon.

It is unclear what, if anything, will happen as a result of the hearing. Pipes' and Nassif's plea that no more aid should go to Lebanon apparently was ignored, since the House foreign aid appropriations bill supports continued aid for Lebanon. On the other hand, Gilman accomplished what was probably his main objective: to demonstrate to Israel's U.S. lobby and his suburban New York City constitutents that he remains ever vigilant in defense of Israel's interests.

House Revisits Iran Libya Sanctions Act

Gilman's committee also held a hearing on July 23 on the subject of "Iran Libya Sanctions Act--One Year Later." Witnesses included two State Department officials, Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs Alan Larsen and Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch; Dr. Patrick Clawson of the National Defense University; Dr. Mehdi Khorshidi of the Iranian National Conference; Petroleum Intelligence Weekly editor Sara Miller; and Jeffrey Schott of the Institute for International Economics.

For the most part, the testimony was predictable. Clawson and Miller both agreed that the act had been successful in limiting petroleum investment in Iran and Libya, but each also pointed out the act's cost in terms of lost business for U.S. firms and soured relations with America's allies.

Miller pointed out the irony in limiting access to oil and gas in a region where a major U.S. national priority is to assure unimpeded access to those resources. She also pointed out that for the U.S. to use the "oil weapon" seems short-sighted, considering U.S. reactions in 1967 and 1973 when the Arab League used the same weapon, and she reminded the committee that the U.S. has spoken out strongly against the use of secondary boycotts when they were applied by Arab countries against companies doing business in Israel.

Although the media gave most coverage to State Department witness Larsen's statement that the proposed pipeline to transport Turkmenistan gas through Iran to Turkey does not violate the act so long as it does not also transport Iranian gas, this did not surprise most observers. In fact, onlookers were more surprised with how strongly State Department witnesses appeared to be supporting the sanctions.

Larsen said that although no sanctions have been imposed under the act, this was because international companies have taken the act seriously and have taken care not to violate it. He said the department is looking very hard at the recent agreement by a German bank to lend $90 million to an Iranian oilfield engineering and construction company to see if it violates the act. He also said they are looking at the recently concluded agreement by Malaysia's Petronas and Saudi Arabia's Nimr Petroleum to invest in Libyan oilfield development, but have tentatively concluded that the deal falls below the act's $40 million threshold. He said the department is also closely watching the proposed investment by the French firm Total in developing Iran's South Pars gas field.

The Total South Pars deal especially interested Gilman. He asked the witnesses what the U.S. should do if the deal is completed. Clawson and Miller both pointed out that the field is so large that even a company as big as Total would need partners, which could delay things for a long time. Clawson said that the best approach would be to work behind the scenes to reach an agreement "that doesn't rub Total's face in it" whereby the contract is allowed to be concluded, but with a side agreement that the field will not actually be developed until Tehran changes its policies.