[Mb-civic] New Democratic Leader in Senate Unlikely to Oppose Bush Administration?s Foreign Policy Agenda

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

Commentary 
Reading Harry Reid: 
New Democratic Leader in Senate Unlikely to 
Oppose Bush Administration’s Foreign Policy 
Agenda
By Stephen Zunes | November 19, 2004 

Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)
  
Project Against the Present Danger www.presentdanger.org 
 
 http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2004/0411reid.html

The overwhelming selection of Nevada Senator Harry Reid as 
minority leader of Congress’ upper house shows that the Democrats 
are still willing to give their backing for the Bush administration’s 
reckless militarism and contravention of international legal norms.

Despite evidence that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass 
destruction, WMD programs, or offensive delivery systems, Reid 
voted in October 2002 to authorize a U.S. invasion of Iraq because 
of what he claimed was “the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.” The 
Reid-backed resolution falsely accused Iraq of “continuing to 
possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons 
capability 
 [and] actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, 
thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the 
United States.”

When Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on 
the International Relations committee, tried to alter the wording of 
the resolution so as not to give President Bush the blank check he 
was seeking and to put some limitations on his war-making 
authority, Reid--as assistant minority leader of the Senate--helped 
circumvent Biden’s efforts by signing on to the White House’s 
version. As the Democratic “whip,” Reid then persuaded a majority 
of Democratic Senators to vote down a resolution offered by 
Democratic Senator Carl Levin that would authorize force only if the 
UN Security Council voted to give the U.S. that authority and to 
instead support the White House resolution giving Bush the right to 
invade even without such legal authorization. (By contrast, a sizable 
majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives voted 
against the Republican resolution.)

In March 2003, after Iraq allowed United Nations inspectors to 
return and it was becoming apparent that there were no WMDs to 
be found, President Bush decided to invade Iraq anyway. Reid 
rushed to the president’s support, claiming that--despite its clear 
violation of the United Nations Charter--the invasion was “lawful” 
and that he “commends and supports the efforts and leadership of 
the President.”

Following the invasion, President Bush asked Congress for $87 
billion to pay for the first phases of the occupation. Despite record 
budget deficits, major cutbacks in valuable social programs, and 
polls showing that 59% of the public opposed the funding request, 
Reid supported the resolution, stating, “ I voted for President Bush's 
$87 billion request because we have to support our troops ... 
period.” To this day, Reid continues to defend the U.S. occupation 
of Iraq and taxpayer funding for it. Reid apparently believes that the 
best way to “support our troops” is not to demand that the Bush 
administration allow them to return home to safety but force them to 
fight in an unnecessary, unwinnable, counter-insurgency war on the 
other side of the planet. 

  

Losing Checks and Balances
Historically, opposition leaders in the Senate have taken seriously 
Congress’ role under the U.S. Constitution to place a check on 
presidential powers. However, Reid has repeatedly demonstrated 
his naïve faith in President George W. Bush’s judgment, not only 
twice granting him unprecedented war-making authority, but 
justifying this betrayal of his constitutional responsibility by claiming 
that “no President of the United States of whatever political 
philosophy will take this nation to war as a first resort alternative 
rather than as a last resort.”

The last Senator from the inland West to lead the Democrats was 
Mike Mansfield of Montana, who served as Senate majority leader 
for most of the 1960s and 1970s. He courageously spoke out 
against the Vietnam War, not only when the Republican Richard 
Nixon was president, but also when Democrat Lyndon Johnson was 
president. Unlike Mansfield, however, who was willing to challenge 
the foreign policy of his own party’s administration, Reid refuses to 
speak out even when the administration is from the opposing 
political party.

Perhaps most disappointing aspect of the Senate Democrats’ 
selection of Reid as their leader is that it underscores the 
Democrats’ lack of support for international law and their blind 
support for the Bush administration’s position that the United States 
and its allies are somehow exempt from their international legal 
obligations.

For example, Reid justified his support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq 
by echoing the administration’s claims that “this nation would be 
justified in making war to enforce the terms we imposed on Iraq in 
1991” since Iraq promised “the world it would not engage in further 
aggression and it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It 
has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of 
the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the 
armed conflict.”

First of all, Iraq had not engaged in further acts of aggression and it 
had already destroyed its weapons of mass destruction, 
demonstrating Reid’s willingness to defend the Bush 
administration’s lies in order to justify a U.S. takeover of that oil-rich 
country.

Secondly, even if Iraq had been guilty as charged, the armistice 
agreement to which Reid referred--UN Security Council resolution 
687--had no military enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore, 
resolution 678, which originally authorized the use of force against 
Iraq, had become null and void once Iraqi troops withdrew from 
Kuwait. An additional resolution specifically authorizing the use of 
force would have been required in order for the United States to 
legally engage in any further military action against the Baghdad 
regime.

Iraq is not the only area where Reid’s contempt for international 
legal standards is apparent: Reid is a cosponsor of a pending 
resolution condemning the International Court of Justice for its July 
decision, which held that governments engaged in belligerent 
occupation are required to uphold relevant provisions of the Fourth 
Geneva Convention and related standards of international 
humanitarian law. Furthermore, despite a series of UN Security 
Council resolutions declaring Israel’s occupation, colonization, and 
annexation of Arab East Jerusalem illegal, Reid sponsored the 
Jerusalem Embassy Act that insists that “Jerusalem remain an 
undivided city” under Israeli control. In addition, Reid has supported 
Israel’s colonization of the occupied West Bank in contravention of a 
series of UN Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to 
withdraw these illegal settlements. Despite the protests of human 
rights groups, Reid has strongly defended Israeli attacks on civilian 
targets in the occupied territories and the construction of a 
separation wall deep into the occupied West Bank, also in 
contravention of international legal norms.

As a number of liberal activists have pointed out, Reid’s positions on 
trade, abortion, civil liberties, gay rights, spending priorities, and 
health care are also closer to the Bush administration than most 
Democratic voters. However, given what is at stake, it is foreign 
policy where the need for forceful congressional opposition to the 
Bush agenda is most important. In electing Harry Reid as their 
Senate leader, the Democrats have once again demonstrated that 
they are simply not up to the task.

(Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & 
Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He is 
Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project 
<www.fpif.org> and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy 
and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).)
 

-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option 
D - up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone 
forwarded you this email and you want to be on our list, send an 
email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.



Action is the antidote to despair.  ----Joan Baez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041121/259ac99a/attachment.htm