Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May-June 2008, pages 48-49

Congress Watch

Administration Claims Iraq Agreement Requires No Further Congressional Approval

By Shirl McArthur

Continuing to draw congressional fire is the “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the U.S.,” signed in November by President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with the goal of concluding a final agreement between the two governments, including U.S. “security assurances…to deter foreign aggression against Iraq.” Congressional Democrats and some Republicans refute the Bush administration’s contention that such agreement would not require congressional consultation or ratification.

As reported in the previous issue of the Washington Report, on Feb. 6 Defense Secretary Robert Gates assured the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that the proposed agreement “will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq,” in apparent contradiction to the “Declaration.” Since then, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have repeated and amplified that assurance and also said the proposed agreement will not authorize permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

However, in his March 4 testimony before the Middle East subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), State Department Coordinator for Iraq Ambassador David Satterfield made it clear that the administration intends to negotiate two different agreements with Iraq. The first would be a standard Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), similar to those in force with more than 100 nations, basically an administrative agreement relating to legal authorities, immunities and obligations of U.S. forces in the country. It is normally negotiated as an executive agreement, without congressional approval.

Satterfield described the second agreement as a “strategic framework” or “bilateral security” agreement, which would “permit U.S. and coalition forces to assist in restraining extremists and outside actors who seek power through violence and terror, should the U.S. administration and Iraqi government deem such operations necessary.”

Satterfield said the administration intended to negotiate the SOFA as an executive agreement, without Senate approval “in keeping with past practice,” and that Congress would be consulted. But he did not say what role, if any, the administration pictured for Congress regarding the bilateral security agreement. This did not satisfy subcommittee chairman Gary Ackerman (D-NY), who demanded that the State Department clarify, within 24 hours, Congress’ role in both agreements.

The Bush administration intends to negotiate two different agreements with Iraq.

As a result, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Jeffrey Bergner wrote to Ackerman on March 5, making the remarkable claim that a long-term security agreement with Iraq does not require congressional approval because Congress had already approved such a step with its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussain and with the resolution passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks which authorized military action “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the U.S.”

Although Bergner’s letter would seem to invite a constitutional confrontation between Congress and the administration, the measures previously described in this magazine attempting to prevent such agreement without congressional approval have made little progress. S. 2426, introduced in December by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and H.R. 5128, introduced in January by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), have gained no additional co-sponsors, and still have only nine and fourteen, respectively. H.R. 4959, introduced in January by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), has gained eight co-sponsors, and now has 51, including DeLauro. On March 6, Lee tried again, introducing with three co-sponsors H.Res. 1028, “reasserting congressional prerogatives in foreign policy and reaffirming the importance of following constitutional processes when the U.S. Government enters into agreements regarding the use or maintenance of the U.S. Armed Forces or the use of the financial resources of the U.S. to assist a foreign government or people and clarifying the nature and scope of status of forces agreements.”

On March 13, Reps. William Delahunt (D-MA) and DeLauro introduced H.R. 5626 “to reassert the constitutional role of Congress in making long-term security commitments, to defer significant long-term security commitments to Iraq to the next administration and Congress,” and to promote extension of the U.N. mandate.

Senate Democrats Again Fail to Require Troop Withdrawal From Iraq

On Feb. 13 Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) introduced S. 2633, with 15 co-sponsors, and S. 2634, with 14 co-sponsors. The former would direct the president to begin redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq and would, after 120 days, prohibit funds from being used by U.S. forces in Iraq for anything other than counterterrorism operations, providing security to U.S. installations in Iraq, training Iraqi forces, and redeploying U.S. troops. S. 2634 would direct the secretaries of defense, state, and homeland security to jointly submit to Congress within 60 days a report describing “the global strategy of the U.S. to combat and defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates.”

In a shift of strategy, Senate Republicans on Feb. 25 agreed to begin debating both bills, believing that a debate would highlight their claim that the troop “surge” of last year has been a success because of reduced violence in Iraq. (The Republicans have redefined “success.” The surge originally was sold as enabling Iraqi factions to reconcile their differences and move on to nation building, but senior U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus said in a March 13 interview with The Washington Post that there has not “been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation.” As Arab American Institute President James Zogby noted in his “Washington Watch,” Iraq “remains a tinderbox, ready to ignite. The reduction in violence is due not so much to the U.S. military surge as it is the result of a change in tactics by competing Iraqi groups. Any one of a number of factors, both internal and external to Iraq…could inflame the situation, leading to renewed conflict. The many gaps that plague Iraqi society continue to grow despite the current reduction in violence.”)

Senate debate on the two bills began on Feb. 26 and 27. However, after it was apparent that no more than 30 senators would vote for either bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) withdrew S. 2633 from further consideration on Feb. 27 and S. 2634 on Feb. 28.

Of the many other previously described Iraq-related bills, H.R. 3797, introduced by Rep. David Price (D-NC) in October, has gained five co-sponsors and now has 55, including Price. It would require the president to “seek a regional diplomatic plan for the Middle East.”

Separately, a “senior administration official” told The Washington Post on Feb. 29 that there would be a “pause” in troop withdrawals this summer, but that it would last only four to six weeks, followed by more withdrawals later this year. Currently, troop levels are falling by about 5,000 per month and are scheduled to reach the pre-“surge” level of 130,000 by mid-July. Gates had previously suggested that troop levels could continue to fall to about 100,000 by early 2009, but in February he said he agreed with the pause recommended by Petraeus. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are scheduled to brief Congress on progress in Iraq in early April.

House Passes Resolution Condemning Gaza Rocket Attacks on Israel

On Jan. 29 Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) introduced the non-binding H.Res. 951, “condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations.” The HFAC on Feb. 27 recommended that a modified version of the measure be brought to the full House under “suspension of the rules,” and it was passed by the House on March 5 on a roll call vote of 401-1, with four voting “present.” The measure also condemns “state sponsors, such as Iran and Syria, for enabling Palestinian terrorist organizations to carry out attacks against innocent Israel civilians.” When passed, the resolution had 266 co-sponsors.

The lone “nay” vote was by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and the four voting “present” (abstaining) were Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), and Jim Moran (D-VA). Paul, McDermott, and Moran gave statements saying that the resolution was one-sided and did not address the humanitarian crisis facing the people of Gaza, and that condemning Iran and Syria does nothing to reduce tensions in the Middle East. Predictably, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington immediately condemned Moran’s vote.

Also, H.Res. 939, introduced in January by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) “condemning the glorification of terrorism and the continuing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric at the United Nations” has gained eight co-sponsors and now has 31, including Ros-Lehtinen. The resolution’s page and a half of the “whereas” clauses nowhere cite anti-Semitic actions or statements, unless criticizing Israel or supporting the Palestinians is considered anti-Semitic.

But No Movement on Pro-Peace Measures

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) S.Res. 321, which would reaffirm the Senate’s “commitment to a true and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” and Rep. Susan Davis’ H.Res. 143 “urging the president to appoint a special envoy for Middle East peace,” still have gained no new co-sponsors, and have 38 and 53, respectively. However, Lara Friedman, writing in Americans for Peace Now’s “Legislative Roundup,” noted that the House Appropriations Committee’s report language accompanying the FY’08 foreign aid appropriations bill includes a paragraph saying “the Committee encourages the secretary of state to establish, at an appropriate time, a location for which a special envoy for Middle East peace may operate on an ongoing basis.” While hardly a powerful declaration, this still is a statement of support for at least the concept of a special envoy.

Iran, Syria Receive Little Congressional Attention

Apart from such non-productive attacks as described above, members of Congress have been relatively quiet with regard to Syria and Iran. Of the positive Iran-related bills described in the previous issue, only H.R. 5056, the “Iran Diplomatic Accountability” bill introduced on Jan. 17 by Lee, has gained any co-sponsors, for a total of 13 including Lee. It would “provide for the appointment of a high-level U.S. representative or special envoy for the purpose of easing tensions and normalizing relations between the U.S. and Iran.” H.R. 5084, introduced on Jan, 18 by Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) “to require the secretary of state to conduct ongoing assessments of the effectiveness of sanctions against Iran,” still has no co-sponsors, and H.R. 3119, introduced by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) in July, which would prohibit the use of funds for military operations within or above Iran’s territory without congressional authority, still has 29 co-sponsors, including Udall.

Meanwhile, of the previously described counter-productive measures aimed against Iran, only S. 1430, introduced by Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL) in May, to authorize state and local governments to prohibit state and local assets from being invested in companies having more than $20 million in investments in Iran’s energy sector, has gained co-sponsors. It now has 29, including Obama.

Regarding Syria, H.R. 2332, the “Syria Accountability and Liberation” bill introduced last May by Ros-Lehtinen to expand and broaden the sanctions already passed into law by the “Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act of 2003” has gained two more co-sponsors, and now has 122, including Ros-Lehtinen.

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