POLITICS-U.S.: New Battles Expected Over Cuba, Iran, Religious Rights

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, May 17 1998 (IPS) - President Bill Clinton, already beset by major diplomatic crises in Asia and the Middle East, faces politically charged battles over Cuba, Iran, and religious rights abroad when he returns from the weekend’s Group of Eight (G-8) Summit in Birmingham, England.

The Republican-led House of Representatives has just approved, over White House opposition, a bill to impose sanctions against governments accused of religious persecution. If the Senate follows suit, as expected, Clinton is likely to veto the measure.

Republicans also are speaking out against Clinton’s anticipated decision to waive sanctions against French, Russian, and Malaysian companies investing in Iran’s energy sector. The sanctions were mandated by the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) which Congress passed by a wide margin in 1996.

Clinton will soon find himself in a nasty cross-fire over the 36-year-old US trade embargo against Cuba. Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd has gained substantial support for a measure to permit Clinton to exempt food and medicine from the embargo but Jesse Helms, the far-right Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has just introduced his own proposal to provide food and medical aid under conditions rejected by President Fidel Castro.

These three disputes, which have been building over several months, are resurfacing at a difficult time. Clinton’s foreign policy apparatus is pre-occupied with serious unrest in Indonesia, the repercussions of India’s nuclear tests, and the continuing impasse in the US-mediated Palestinian-Israeli peace process that has brought tensions in the West Bank and Gaza to bursting point.

In addition, Clinton has still not sorted out differences with Congressional right-wingers who have effectively stalled his plans to pay arrears to the nearly bankrupt United Nations and follow through on 18 billion dollars of new commitments to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Complicating matters are mid-term Congressional elections in November, when all seats in the House of Representatives and one third of those in the Senate will be up for grabs. Political debate in election years tends to be more polarised than usual.

Republicans think they have a winner in the ‘Freedom from Religious Persecution Act’, passed in the House by a veto-proof, 375-41 margin and now awaiting a Senate vote. The bill was solicited by leaders of the Christian Right and would require the president to cut off all humanitarian aid, restrict certain kinds of US exports, and oppose World Bank and other multilateral loans to countries deemed to permit or endorse persecution or violence against religious minorities.

The bill does not discriminate between religions entitled to its protection but the most prominent targets raised by its authors are Muslim-dominated societies intolerant of other faiths – especially Sudan, Pakistan, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia, a long- time strategic US ally. China’s repression of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists also was raised.

In a bow to the president’s authority to conduct foreign relations, the bill gives Clinton flexibility to waive sanctions if he certifies that their imposition would harm US national security or religious rights in the target country. However, Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in a commentary published before the House vote, argued that, “by adopting a one- size-fits-all approach, (the bill) risks the well-being of those we are trying to help.”

The Christian Right – which at grassroots level is the most organised sector of the Republican Party – was jubilant after the House passed the bill. “It will send a great signal to the grass roots that their concerns are being taken seriously,” said Gary Bauer, head of the Family Research Council. Bauer is considering running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.

The Senate is expected to make the bill only slightly more palatable to the White House by giving the president greater flexibility in sanctioning other governments. Then Clinton will have to decide whether to veto the bill, a move likely to infuriate the Christian Right.

Meanwhile, Clinton is expected to not penalise three foreign companies for their investments in Iran after an agonising, eight- month review. ILSA, which requires the president to punish foreign companies investing 20 million dollars or more per year in Iran’s or Libya’s energy sector, has been strongly criticised by the European Union (EU) and other allies as an illegal extension of US law beyond its territory.

Clinton’s likely decision – to grant a “national interest” waiver – appears designed mainly to appease those critics, particularly at a moment when Washington needs the EU’s and Russia’s backing for more pressing matters – not least its non- proliferation concerns regarding India, Pakistan and Iran itself, which has imported sensitive Russian technology.

The waiver will be politically costly. Despite favourable coverage of Iranian President Mohammed Khatami and a tentative detente between Teheran and Washington, many here still see Iran as second only to Iraq in “rogue-state” status. Moreover, any move seen as easing US “containment” of Teheran will be used by the Republican Right to further its aggressive courtship of Israel and the powerful Jewish lobby.

Finally, Cuba is moving once again to centre-stage as anti- Castro hawks and doves battle over how best to respond to the humanitarian needs of the island’s people. Clinton lifted a few sanctions after Pope John Paul II visited Cuba in January and highlighted those needs. He has pledged to work with Congress to ease restrictions on the export of food and medicine to the island. But Dodd and Helms are not easily reconcilable, and Clinton may get flak from both sides when he wades into the debate.

The Dodd bill, which has 24 co-sponsors, would give Clinton the authority to exempt sales of food and medicine from the embargo. Helms’s counter proposal would provide 100 million dollars in food aid over four years provided that it be distributed by the Catholic Church and other non-governmental groups there.

Castro already has ruled out such charity as insulting to Cuba’s national pride and, immediately after Helms introduced his bill, Cuba’s Catholic Bishops Conference noted that it “has never distributed aid coming from governments” and has no plans to change.

Helms, however, will not take “no” for an answer. The bishops, his spokesman said Friday, “are people with a gun to their heads.”