Congress Cooperates in Not-So-Subtle Effort to Discredit Saudi Arabia

By Shirl McArthur

Saudi Arabia’s public emergence as a voice of moderation regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict surely could not have pleased Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. After all, the land-for-peace formula outlined by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah is accepted by most world leaders as consistent with what the ultimate solution must look like. That is not how Sharon pictures a peace agreement, however—if indeed he even wants one. Then, in late April, when Abdullah’s visit to the U.S. had an apparently positive effect on President George W. Bush, it was too much for Sharon and his American allies, including those in the U.S. Congress, who mounted a coordinated effort to return Bush to blind acceptance of Israeli actions and policies.

Part of this effort included a campaign to paint Saudi Arabia as an unworthy ally, at best. In addition to several negative newspaper articles, the campaign included three different House committee hearings, stacked to reflect negatively on the Kingdom. The first, on May 22, was held by the House Middle East and South Asia subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), on “What future for the U.S. & Saudi Arabia?” The stage was set in the hearing announcement, which questioned the pace of Saudi reform, the outlook for Saudi stability, the strategic benefit of Saudi Arabia to the U.S., and whether both official and private Saudis continue to support terrorist organizations.

Gilman opened the hearing by saying that the U.S.-Saudi relationship is “deeply troubled,” and “the differences between American and Saudi values are profound. Our interests, too, may come into conflict.” He then recited a long list of “sources of friction.” Although he also included a (shorter) list of “favorable features of our relationship,” he concluded by questioning the extent to which the Kingdom has cooperated in the campaign against terrorism.

Following Gilman was ranking International Relations Committee Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA)—who has emerged over the past year or so as the House’s unofficial spokesman for AIPAC—who said he couldn’t see why the U.S. even deals with Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, committee members Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) said that the Saudi peace plan should be seriously considered and that the Kingdom should stay engaged in the peace process.

Witnesses included, on the one side, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who complained about Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, who criticized the influence of religion in Saudi Arabia, and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, who can always be relied upon to be critical of anything Arab or Muslim.

Countering them was former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Richard Murphy, who tried to correct many of the misstatements made by his fellow witnesses. He supported Rohrabacher and Issa in saying that the U.S. must continue to work with Saudi Arabia on a wide range of issues. Somewhere in the middle was University of Vermont Prof. Dr. F. Gregory Gause, who made the point that the U.S. should “tread very carefully regarding internal Saudi educational and religious practices to avoid a damaging backlash against reform efforts already advocated by Saudi reformers.” He concluded that it would be in the interest of both sides to return to the “over-the-horizon” relationship that existed between the U.S. and the Kingdom before 1990.

Stacked-Deck Hearings

The second hearing, on May 23, was held by the House Armed Services Committee Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism, questioning the “Support that friendly Middle East countries are providing the U.S. in its global war on terrorism.” Again the deck was stacked. The three witnesses were Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, an organization known for its extreme anti-Arab positions; Danielle Pletka, currently a vice president at the American Enterprise Institute, but previously a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member credited by more than one observer as being the author of many of then-Chairman Jesse Helms’ (R-NC) more extreme pro-Israeli positions. (Pletka once told a symposium on Iran that “we don’t care what problems ILSA [the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act] causes the State Department with our European allies.”) Once again, Ambassador Murphy tried to counter the extreme statements of the other two.

The third hearing, held June 12 by the House Government Reform Committee, asked, “Should the U.S. do more to help U.S. citizens held against their will in Saudi Arabia?” The issue at hand was Saudi custom and law prohibiting wives or children of a Saudi man from leaving the Kingdom without his permission, and the problems that have arisen as a result of American women marrying Saudi men. The hearing was held in two panels, the first with three family members of women or children allegedly being held in Saudi Arabia, who gave predictably emotional testimonies. This being the Government Reform Committee, the second panel consisted largely of current and previous State Department officials—former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Hume Horan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Overseas Citizens Services Dianne Andruch, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ryan Crocker—who explained and defended the policy of bowing to local law in such cases, while still assuring the well-being of American citizens. To assure that the panel had the appropriate anti-Saudi tilt, however, it also included Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes and Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow, both known for their anti-Arab biases. Pipes described the problem of “U.S. nationals abducted to Saudi Arabia” as part of a “larger pattern of caution and even obsequiousness that has for decades characterized Washington’s relations with Riyadh.” He then went on for 10 pages detailing this “larger pattern,” using largely anecdotal and sometimes unsubstantiated reports.

Immediately following the hearing, a group of committee members wrote to Bush “urging him to come to the defense of these innocent U.S. citizens,” and a smaller group wrote to Bush asking that he direct the State Department to withhold visas from “Saudi kidnappers and their families who wish to travel to the U.S.”

Other recent hearings of interest included an April 18 hearing by Gilman’s subcommittee on “The Impact of Incitement, Anti-American and Anti-Semitic Propaganda on American Interests in the Middle East.” In his opening statement Gilman said that anti-Semitism was partially responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, and that the “fanatical anti-American and anti-Semitic incitement that permeates the Arab World” constitutes “an ideological enemy that may turn out to be harder to defeat than Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.”

On June 6 the House Armed Services Committee Terrorism Oversight Panel held a hearing asking “Are Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority Credible Partners for Peace?” The three witnesses were Dr. Rachel Ehrendfeld of the Center for Strategic Studies; James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation, and former Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East Martin Indyk. Their answers all boiled down to “No, not as long as Arafat is leading the PA.“

AIPAC’s Anti-Arafat Bills

While AIPAC was able to get prompt approval for the Israeli-Solidarity resolutions (see the June/July Washington Report), the other two bills it is pushing are making slower progress. The Senate version of the “Arafat Accountability” bill (S. 2194), introduced by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on April 18, now has 30 co-sponsors. The new ones are Sens. Wayne Allard (R-CO), Jon Corzine (D-NJ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Charles Grassley (R-IA), James Inhofe (R-OK), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Robert Torricelli (D-NJ).

In addition, on May 9 Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) introduced an identical bill in the House (H.R. 4693). Both bills attack Arafat personally and would impose sanctions on the PLO and the PA unless Arafat and the PLO publicly condemn all acts of terrorism and destroy the “infrastructures of terrorism.” Sanctions include restricting the travel of the PLO representative to the U.N., seizing the assets of the PA and PLO and the personal assets of Yasser Arafat in the U.S., and denying visas to officials of the PA and PLO. As opposed to previous versions, these bills include a presidential waiver provision only for the denying visas sanction. H.R. 4693 has 43 co-sponsors: Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Robert Andrews (D-NJ), Howard Berman (D-CA), Blunt, Eric Cantor (R-VA), Brad Carson (D-OK), Bob Clement (D-TN), Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), Calvin Dooley (D-CA), Phil English (R-PA), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), Gilman, Kay Granger (R-TX), Gene Green (D-TX), Melissa Hart (R-PA), Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA), Tim Holden (D-PA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Steve Israel (D-NY), Sue Kelly (R-NY), John Linder (R-GA), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Michael McNulty (D-NY), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Butch Otter (R-ID), Major Owens (D-NY), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Mike Pence (R-IN), Jim Ramstad (R-MN), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Mike Ross (D-AR), Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Edward Schrock (R-VA), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Brad Sherman (D-CA), John Shimkus (R-IL), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Mark Souder (R-IN), John Sullivan (R-OK), Lee Terry (R-NE), Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Robert Wexler (D-FL).

Meanwhile, the milder version (H.R. 1795) introduced by Ackerman a year ago also has picked up one co-sponsor, Rep. Mac Collins (R-GA), for a total of 158 including Ackerman.

In related action, H.R. 3624, introduced by Cantor in January, and which would prohibit any U.S. funds from being used “for any form of assistance directly or indirectly to the Palestinian Authority or any instrumentality of the Palestinian Authority,” now has 70 co-sponsors, including Cantor. The new ones are Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), LoBiondo, Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Pallone, Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Chris Smith, and Joe Wilson (R-SC). In addition, a more pernicious bill, S. 2432, was introduced on May 1 by Sen. Robert Smith (R-NH), with no co-sponsors. This bill not only prohibits any federal funds for the PA, but also prohibits any funds for “any private, voluntary organization for projects related to the PA, or projects located in Palestine that would otherwise be undertaken by the PA.”

“Syria Accountability” Bills

The “Syria Accountability” bills, S. 2215 and H.R. 4483, introduced simultaneously on April 18 by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), also continue to gain co-sponsors, but have made no progress through the legislative process. The bills would provide that, until the president certifies that Syria has ended its support for terrorist groups, has withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, has stopped its development of ballistic missiles and biological and chemical weapons, and complies with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, several sanctions would be imposed. These include a ban on military exports to Syria, and a ban on U.S. government financial assistance to American businesses investing or doing business in Syria, plus two more sanctions that the president can select from a menu of five (in the Senate version) or six (in the House version), including prohibiting U.S. (other than food and medicine) exports to Syria, and prohibiting U.S. businesses from investing or operating in Syria.

New co-sponsors of S. 2215 are Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Corzine, Tim Hutchinson (R-AR), Inhofe, Tim Johnson (D-SD), Carl Levin (D-MI), Mikulski, Snowe, and Torricelli.

The new co-sponsors of H.R. 4483 are Reps. Andrews, Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Henry Brown (R-SC), Ed Bryant (R-TN), Dan Burton (R-IN), Sonny Callahan (R-AL), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Mac Collins, Bud Cramer (D-AL), Jo Ann Davis, Susan Davis (D-CA), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT),Chet Edwards (D-TX), Sam Farr (D-CA), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), Randy Forbes (R-VA), Frank, Bart Gordon (D-TN), Granger, Mark Green (R-WI), Hart, Robin Hayes (R-NC), Joel Hefley (R-CO), Holden, Holt, Sam Johnson (R-TX), Ric Keller (R-FL), Jack Kingston (R-GA), Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), Sander Levin (D-MI), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney, James Maloney (D-CT), Robert Matsui (D-CA), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY),Scott McInnis (R-CO), Connie Morella (R-MD), Nadler, Anne Northup (R-KY), Owens, Pallone, Thomas Petri (R-WI), Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), Bob Riley (R-AL), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Saxton, Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Sessions, Clay Shaw (R-FL), Christopher Shays (R-CT), Shimkus, Ronnie Shows (D-MS), Rob Simmons (R-CT), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Sullivan, Edolphus Towns (D-NY), David Vitter (R-AL), Waxman, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Albert Wynn (D-MD).

Another bill apparently aimed at Syria is S. 2425, introduced by Bayh on April 30, which prohibits “U.S. assistance and commercial arms exports to countries and entities supporting international terrorism.” Co-sponsors are Bayh, Brownback, Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Michael DeWine (R-OH), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), and Charles Schumer (D-NY).

A Few Bright Spots

Although the previously described balanced House resolutions urging a stop to the violence in the Middle East have made little or no progress, there are a few bright spots. Rep. John Dingell’s balanced cease-fire resolution has gained Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN) as a co-sponsor, for a total of 48, and on May 1 Rep. David Obey (D-WI) introduced H.RES. 405, a balanced resolution (in the context of the current Congress) expressing “the moral requirement to end violence and terror in the Middle East.” While it expresses the House’s commitment to Israel and condemns Palestinian violence, it also urges Israel to make clear its willingness to withdraw from occupied territories. Co-sponsors are Reps. Farr, Obey, Rothman, Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Tom Sawyer (D-OH).

On the civil rights front, S. 625, the Hate Crimes Prevention bill introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy in March 2001, now is co-sponsored by 51 senators—a majority of the Senate. Kennedy managed to get the bill brought up for debate in early June, but when a motion to cut off further debate and bring the bill to a vote failed to pass, the Senate leadership then pulled the bill off the floor, while reserving the right to bring it up later.

Meanwhile, the House version, H.R. 1343, introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in April 2001, has gained one new co-sponsor, Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY). With a total of 207 co-sponsors, including Conyers, however, it still lacks a majority of the House. The bills would provide federal assistance to states and local jurisdictions to investigate and prosecute crimes motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Another positive development was the May 10 introduction, also by Kennedy, of his “Cultural Bridges” bill to “establish an international exchange visitor program under which eligible students from the Islamic world would attend public secondary schools in the U.S.” The bill would authorize $20 million per year for each of the next five years to carry out the program. The bill has 13 co-sponsors: Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy, Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Gordon Smith (R-OR).

More Aid for Israel, Palestinians

The $29.1 billion supplemental appropriations bill described in the previous issue of this magazine passed the full House on May 24. As passed, the bill includes $200 million for Israel and $50 million for humanitarian assistance for the Palestinians. The Senate version, valued at $31 billion, passed the full Senate on June 7. This version also includes $200 million for Israel and $50 million for the Palestinians. It also includes $15 million for “an international exchange visitor program for secondary school students from countries with significant Muslim populations.”

The two versions must now be reconciled by a conference committee. There has been some talk of a presidential veto if the conference accepts the more costly Senate version, since both versions are more expensive than the $27.1 billion requested by Bush.

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