The first legislative defeat in Congress for President George W. Bush came not after prolonged discussion over Iraq or overhauling Social Security, nor a divisive debate over immigration. Rather, early in Bush’s first term he suffered a surprising defeat over Lebanese assistance. The final 216-210 vote in favor of the Lantos Amendment on May 16, 2001 came after the formation of an alliance of staunchly pro-Israel Democrats, Evangelical Christian Republicans, and others defeated a loose coalition of traditional Republicans — bolstered by a letter from then Secretary of State Colin Powell opposing Lantos — and a majority of Democrats. The amendment restricted US assistance to Beirut, delaying indefinitely funding for development programs in south Lebanon.
“It is difficult to fathom who would benefit from allowing a border, an international border in a volatile and fragile and explosive area, being controlled by terrorists who openly and clearly desire no return to the peace process. They want the bloodbath to continue... My amendment is designed to stop the aid to Hezbollah-controlled communities. It is absurd that American taxpayer funds are used to support Hezbollah activities,” noted Rep. Tom Lantos (D-California) during the 2001 debate.
History does not always repeat itself, but when Lantos placed a hold on President Bush’s proposed assistance package for war-torn Lebanon this week, no one should have been surprised. For Lebanon’s sake, however, let us hope the Bush administration learned some lessons from the 2001 debate.
In terms of Middle East policy, the most serious debate in Washington this fall is expected to pertain to US assistance to Lebanon. The Bush administration has announced its intent to provide Beirut $230 million in aid. However, Lantos, the ranking Democratic member on the House International Relations Committee, is organizing a coalition to block the package lest it require firm commitments from Lebanon that would effectively force the Beirut government into open confrontation with Syria and Hezbollah — developments that would jeopardize the fragile cease-fire.
In the eyes of the White House and others supporting Beirut, Lantos’ approach would cause profound problems on public relations, humanitarian, and policy grounds. By unswervingly backing Israel and actively working to delay a cease-fire agreement, the US policy vis-à-vis Lebanon further alienated both the Arab world and international community. Thus, a delay in allocating aid would further poison the atmosphere.
While some believe the size of the US pledge ($230 million) is too small, it is unquestionably a significant figure in light of existing humanitarian needs. Benevolence aside, there is a very real political reason for the United States to facilitate the prompt dispersal of assistance: It will allow the Lebanese government to promptly provide aid to its citizens. Otherwise, their needs will likely be met by Hezbollah, via Iran.
Even if Lantos fails and a congressional fight is avoided, delays on US assistance are probable. As of Sept. 1, the US provided $47.8 million in aid for Lebanon. Around 10 percent of this figure, however, was spent on administrative costs, logistics, security, and training rather than humanitarian needs. Further, $24 million was spent prior to July 26, and 25 percent of the $47.8 million — and almost 50 percent of the total funding proposed — is in the form of surplus US wheat. Sending surplus US wheat to Lebanon, which will be exchanged for cash on the international market, is not time-effective; wheat cannot be quickly converted to funds for humanitarian needs.
Regardless, to avoid further delay and a repeat of the 2001 loss on the Lantos amendment, the Bush administration must work closely with key congressional offices to build and sustain a winning coalition. This task will be complicated should AIPAC intercede on behalf of Lantos, as it did last time. With elections less than two months away, few members of either party would eagerly oppose AIPAC. However, the White House will not have to fight Tom DeLay this time. DeLay, the powerful former Republican Majority Leader, used a controversial, if not unethical, tactic during the 2001 debate by holding the vote open after debate time had expired. DeLay’s “delay” gave him the time to convinced 14 Republicans to change their votes. Without DeLay, Lantos will have difficulty building support among Republicans.
Bush, on the other hand, will have strong support from a coalition being built by Reps. Ray Lahood (R-Illinois) and Charles Boustany (R-Louisiana), two Lebanese-American members of the House of Representatives who recently returned from a trip to war-ravaged Lebanon. As in the 2001 debate, they will rely on the support of legislators representing Lebanese-American communities across the United States — particularly the Michigan delegation.
— David Dumke is principal of the Washington-based MidAmr Group. E-mail: [email protected]
