Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2002, pages 32-34

Congress Watch

 

Congress Resisting War Hawks on Iraq

 

By Shirl McArthur

Returning from their August recess after hearing constituents’ concerns about the possibility of war, members of Congress intensified their criticisms and questioning of the apparent determination of the George W. Bush administration—led by a small but influential group of war hawks, including Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a few other civilian defense officials—to rush headlong into a unilateral war with Iraq. This despite mounting opposition world-wide (except from America’s puppeteer state, Israel) and without thinking through the ramifications and consequences.

In the two weeks leading up to Bush’s Sept. 12 U.N. address, members of both parties publicly expressed their reservations about whether the administration had made a compelling case for a U.S. attack. While many agreed that the world would be better off without Iraqi President Saddam Hussain, there was little support for unilateral action, and nearly unanimous agreement that the administration had a lot of answers to give Congress and the American people before any action should be taken. Opinion seemed to coalesce around the idea that, if any action is to be taken, it should be with full U.N. agreement, and preferably with a multilateral force. Many members of Congress felt the first step should be a U.N. ultimatum to Hussain demanding unrestricted inspections.

Members speaking out most forcefully in September included Sens. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Susan Collins (R-ME), Larry Craig (R-ID), Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John Kerry (D-MA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), James McGovern (D-MA), and Ron Paul (R-TX). Feinstein said that the Israeli-Palestinian situation should be a higher priority: “to leave it unresolved and attack an Arab country…will unite the Arab world against us.”

DeFazio said that he and 17 other members of Congress had written to Bush expressing their concerns and listing some of the questions that needed to be answered before they could approve a war with Iraq.

Even before the August recess, members of Congress were becoming restive over the way the war hawks were trying to push the country into a unilateral, ill-prepared war. As early as June 5, Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) recited on the floor of the House some of the objections to precipitous action, saying, “We have been too quick to drop bombs on people who want to be our friends.”

On July 18, Specter, joined by Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), introduced Senate Joint Resolution 41, which calls “for Congress to consider and vote on a resolution for the use of force by the United States Armed Forces against Iraq before such force is deployed.” On July 26 DeFazio, joined by 15 co-sponsors, introduced an identical resolution, H.J.Res. 109, in the House. The 15 co-sponsors were Reps. Joe Crowley (D-NY), Sam Farr (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Darlene Hooley (D-OR), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), George Miller (D-CA), John Shimkus (R-IL), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Mark Udall (D-CO), Tom Udall (D-NM), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

 

Senator Hagel cautioned about the dangers of “unintended consequences.”

On July 30 Feinstein, joined by Leahy, introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 133, saying that the U.S. “should not use force against Iraq, outside of the existing rules of engagement, without specific statutory authorization or a declaration of war.” On Sept. 4 Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) introduced a similar concurrent resolution (H.Con. Res. 460). (The difference between a joint resolution and a concurrent resolution is that the latter is non-binding, expressing only the “sense of Congress,” while a joint resolution has the force of law.)

Then came the July 31 and Aug. 1 hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, called by committee chairman Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), which raised huge uncertainties and questions about how to handle the “threat” posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussain, without providing any answers. The longest list of questions that must be answered before any action should be undertaken was given by Hagel, who cautioned about the dangers of “unintended consequences if we take unilateral military action against Iraq.”

The Biden hearing seemed to open the gates for those criticizing and questioning the wisdom of following the advice of the war hawks. In various op-ed articles, speeches, and talk show appearances, respected former Republican officials and Democratic and Republican members of Congress alike began to speak up. Bush Sr.’s National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former President Jimmy Carter, and former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, James Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger gave detailed critiques. Former Commander of the U.S. Central Command Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni said that war against Iraq would alienate U.S. allies in the region and that it would be better “to negotiate peace between Israelis and Palestinians and to pursue the al-Qaeda network before going after [Hussain].”

In addition to Hagel and Biden, members of Congress speaking out in August included House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-TX), Representative DeFazio, and Democratic Sens. Byrd, Feingold, Leahy and Carl Levin (MI). Armey, who is retiring this year, said that as long as Hussain “behaves himself within his own borders” it would be a mistake and contrary to American values to go after him. Only House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX), who is slated to replace Armey as majority leader, gave a forceful defense of the war hawks’ position.

Although Bush said periodically during the summer that he would consult with Congress and U.S. allies before taking action against Iraq, he pointedly did not say that he would seek their approval. In late August the White House staff leaked a lawyers’ opinion that Bush would not need additional congressional approval because the 1991 resolution giving Bush Sr. authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf remains in force.

Several observers, however, believe that the rising crescendo of criticism from members of Congress and America’s friends and allies, especially in Europe and the Middle East, not only caused Bush to backtrack and say that he all along intended to seek the support of the American people and Congress as well as U.S. allies, but was the impetus behind the decision for his Sept. 12 address to the U.N.

 

Pre-November Developments

Although the defeats in the Democratic primaries of Alabama Rep. Earl Hilliard and Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney by opponents heavily financed by out-of-state Jewish contributors have received a lot of attention, there have been other developments important to Arab Americans and U.S. national interests in the Middle East.

Although the Hilliard and McKinney races were influenced by several local factors, not the least of which was that both their districts had been redrawn to include more conservative neighborhoods, it is hard not to conclude that the decisive factor in each case was the massive Jewish financial aid to their opponents coupled with undisguised anti-Arab racism.

A week before the Georgia primary The Washington Post ran a separate article alerting its readers that at least 18 donors to McKinney’s campaign “are either officers of Muslim foundations under investigation by the FBI, have voiced support for Palestinian and Lebanese terrorist organizations or have made inflammatory statements about Jews.” The Post did not say whether it had conducted a similar survey of contributors to McKinney’s opponent to see how many had contributed to the Jewish Defense League, voiced support for the JDL or Israeli terrorist organizations, or made inflammatory statements about Arabs.

Even the respected Congressional Quarterly managed to note that both Hilliard and McKinney “received donations from contributors with Arabic-sounding names,” as though that were significant, and without noting whether their opponents had received donations from people “with Jewish-sounding names.” (CQ did note, however, that McKinney received “donations from all over the country, which likely came from donors contacted by Jewish organizations,” and that an analysis by CQ produced about 200 names of people who gave to both Hilliard’s and McKinney’s opponents.)

Although not so highly publicized, and more difficult to establish, there were some reports that the next target of the pro-Israel forces was Rep. John Sununu, who was seeking to unseat Sen. Bob Smith in the Sept.10 New Hampshire Republican primary. If these reports were true, it was one of the few times the Israel lobby has failed; Sununu won 53 to 45 percent. While something of a maverick on some issues, Smith has been a reliable, steadfast supporter of Israel. It no doubt galls the lobby that, with current New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen as the Democratic nominee, the newest New Hampshire senator will be an Arab American.

Another potentially positive development for those concerned about Congress’s blind support for Israel was the decision by the House Middle East Subcommittee current chairman, Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), to retire after the state’s redistricting essentially dismantled his district. Gilman has been one of Israel’s most fervent supporters, and his seniority in the International Relations Committee made him an invaluable asset to Israel.

On the negative side, the departure of Rep. David Bonior (D-MI) and his defeat in the Democratic primary for Michigan state governor is bad news. While not an Arab American, Bonior is a champion of civil and human rights and has been outspoken in condemning the injustices perpetrated against the Palestinians by Israel. He was the sponsor of the Secret Evidence Repeal bill, which was one of the casualties of the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

Supplemental Aid to Palestinians, Israel Held Up

Prior to the August recess, both the Senate and the House passed the reconciled version of the $28.9 billion supplemental appropriations bill, including $50 million in “disaster assistance” for the Palestinians and $200 million for Israel, as described in previous issues of this magazine. President Bush signed the bill on Aug. 2. The conference committee inserted a provision in the final version, however, to the effect that $5.1 billion worth of projects included in the bill, including the aid to Israel and the Palestinians, could be spent only if the president declares within 30 days that all of the projects are “an emergency requirement.”

On Aug. 13 Bush announced that he could not declare all of those projects “emergencies,” although he clearly would like some of them reappropriated. He specifically mentioned the money for the Palestinians and Israel as projects he hopes Congress will reappropriate. This will probably happen, with the most likely vehicle being the regular foreign aid appropriations bill. As of this writing, neither house of Congress has approved the bill, but this could happen by the time this issue reaches its readers.

Although the foreign aid appropriations bills reportedly include the expected earmarked amounts for Israel, Egypt and Jordan, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) has reported that at least the House bill will also include a version of the “Arafat Accountability” bill (see below). According to the JTA, the provision will include demands for new Palestinian leadership and reform, and will impose sanctions if those demands are not met. Unlike the Arafat Accountability bill, the provision does allow for a presidential waiver, and also says that, if the conditions are met, the U.S. should provide substantial economic assistance and also encourage outside assistance to the new Palestinian state, according to the JTA.

 

Gilman Holds Two More Palestinian-Bashing Hearings

Gilman’s pending retirement has not slowed his relentless attacks on Palestinians in general, and Chairman Yasser Arafat in particular. On June 18, just a few days before Bush delivered his disappointing speech on the Middle East, Gilman held a hearing on “Recent Developments in the Middle East.” Assistant Secretary of State William Burns was the only witness.

While other parts of the Middle East, including Iraq and Iran, were touched upon, the focus was the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Burns tried to give a more or less balanced presentation, saying in the same sentence, for example, that he had seen the “horrific aftermath of a suicide bombing in Jerusalem, and the terrible destruction inside Jenin refugee camp.” He also said that ordinary Israelis deserve security and an end to incitement and hate language, and that Palestinians “deserve a future that puts an end to the corrosive impact of occupations and settlements, a future that stops the daily humiliations of life under occupation, a future that brings Palestinians their own state, responsible governance and the chance for normal dignified lives.”

Gilman and other Israel supporters on the Middle East subcommittee, including Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Howard Berman (D-CA), Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), were not prepared to agree. They could only focus on the PA’s and Arafat’s shortcomings, without acknowledging any positive measures that Israel should take. According to Gilman, “prematurely setting up an interim Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza would be a tragic error.”

Then, on July 3, Gilman held a hearing to discuss H.R. 4693, the “Arafat Accountability” bill and its earlier, milder version, H.R. 1795. Both bills would impose sanctions on the PA if it doesn’t comply with a list of requirements. H.R. 4693 is the stronger of the two, in that it does not include a presidential waiver provision except for the sanction denying visas to PA officials.

In his opening statement, Gilman said that by supporting legislation such as these two bills Congress “can play an important role” in transforming Bush’s vision of a new Palestinian leadership, as stated in his June 24 speech, into concrete actions. The hearing’s only witness, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield, disagreed, saying “both pieces of legislation would eliminate the flexibility we will need to attain these goals.”

These bills can be considered dead for the 107th Congress, and AIPAC has reportedly quit pushing them in favor of pressing for the adoption of the version being considered in the foreign aid bill described above. Gilman’s hearing, then, can be written off as election-year posturing.

Nevertheless, H.R. 4693 has picked up five more co-sponsors, in addition to those identified in the congressional scorecard included in the Sept./Oct. issue of this magazine. They are Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), John Shadegg (R-AZ), and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA).

 

Hagel, Wellstone Point Out Flaws in Bush’s June 24 Speech

Two days after Bush’s June 24 speech, Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) spoke on the floor of the Senate to point out a major “gap” in Bush’s statement. The vision that Bush laid out, Wellstone pointed out, will not work “unless the conditions on the ground are changed.” There are at least three factors that have to change, he said: the Palestinian people have to have hope; they have to have a growing economy, and they have to be able to move from place to place. Wellstone expanded on these issues, concluding, “We need to address these issues if, in fact, we are to be able to get this crisis back on the political track, with some sort of political process that truly might lead to an end to this violence.”

On July 19 The Washington Post published an op-ed piece by Hagel saying that the U.S. “shouldn’t make Arafat the issue.” He explained that “if we are serious about reform in the Palestinian Authority, then we must allow the Palestinians and the Arabs to deal with Arafat. Credible alternative Palestinian leadership will not step forward in response to a perceived American-Israeli demand for Arafat’s removal.…We give the extremists an issue that we need not give them.”

Hagel also pointed out that “we cannot wait until Palestine is a full-blown Jeffersonian democracy before getting on with a peace process,” and that “Palestinian reformers cannot promote a democratic agenda for change while both the Israeli military occupation and settlement activity continue.

 

Syria Accountability Dead, But Still Kicking

Like the “Arafat Accountability” bill, it is very unlikely that the “Syria Accountability” bills (S.2215 and H.R. 4483) will be voted on before the 107th Congress concludes, and AIPAC has quit pushing them. However, no doubt for electioneering purposes, Gilman’s Middle East subcommittee held a Sept. 18 hearing on “Syria Accountability,” and both bills continue to gain co-sponsors. S. 2215 has gained two co-sponsors in addition to those identified in the congressional scorecard, Sens. Ben Campbell (R-CO) and Feinstein. H.R. 4483 has 13 new co-sponsors: Reps. Marion Berry (D-AR), Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), Mary Bono (R-CA), Robert Brady (D-PA), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Martin Frost (D-TX), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Dennis Moore (D-KS), Chip Pickering (R-MS), Mike Ross (D-AR), Ted Strickland (D-OH), Fred Upton (R-MI), and Curt Weldon (R-PA).

Shirl McArthur, a retired foreign service officer, is a consultant in the Washington, DC area.

 

Sidebar

 

Hyde Proposes Mideast Marshal Plan

With former Sen. George Mitchell as a star witness, House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) called an all-day hearing on the creation of a Marshall Plan for the Middle East as a way to bring some economic hope to both Israelis and Palestinians. Hyde called for the establishment of a “special temporary government agency to make investments in the private sector aimed at sustainable job creation” and to ‘provide policy direction to other agencies of the U.S. for the purpose of helping infrastructure rehabilitation.”

Senator Mitchell told the committee that both Israel and the Palestinians had suffered massive economic losses during the current intifada. Israel has lost 3 percent per year in its gross domestic product, he said, and the tourist business was down to a level where hotels were closing. All the Palestinian hotels in Bethlehem were already closed. In 1999 that Palestinian town alone had over 130,000 tourists. In 2001, Mitchell said, there were only 100. Relief officials estimate that over 50 percent of Palestinians now live below the poverty line.

Jerusalem lawyer Hiba Husseini was a witness at the afternoon session, one of the rare occasions when Palestinians have been called to testify at a congressional hearing. All witnesses approved in general of the idea of a new Marshall Plan as an incentive for ending the violence.

Israel’s friends on the committee, however, were not so supportive—although they said they supported the idea in principle. Ranking Democrat Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) said that such an initiative must be contingent upon the PA’s undertaking real political reform. Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) seemed most interested in ensuring “that the state of Israel is fully included in any formula.” Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) wanted to ensure that no aid go to PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, because “Arafat lied and cheated.”

Hyde, who has been talking about the idea for two years, intends to follow up by drafting implementing legislation. However, a committee staff member said that, realistically, this would have to wait until the 108th Congress, because there would be no chance of getting such legislation enacted in the few weeks remaining in the 107th.

Although Hyde’s idea has the support of many in Congress, the important hurdles remain traditional Israeli reluctance to see its neighbors get any large funding and the usual budgetary restrictions, even if much of the money were to come from Japan and Europe. Unless events in the Middle East should make the atmosphere even worse than it is now, however, Henry Hyde is in a position to move his idea forward. —S.M.

< Prev		Next >