Other Newspapers' Opinions: Baghdad’s fears stall the defense bill
Wednesday, January 2, 2008 10:55 AM PST
There are more than 88,500 words in the defense authorization act passed by Congress, but President Bush vetoed it because of 2,500 of them. At issue, the White House says, is a little-noticed section about whether actions in U.S. courts could freeze as much as $30 billion in Iraq’s financial assets.
The president has assured Congress that he will keep the bill’s 3.5 percent pay raise for servicepersons, although it was higher than he sought. While he had previously expressed displeasure with some parts of the act, the showstopper apparently was the section called “Terrorism Exception to Immunity,” which alarmed the government in Baghdad.
In recent days “the Iraqis came to us very strongly and said this provision will have the following consequences to our assets,” an administration official explained to reporters Friday. Those consequences, he said, included the potential freezing of billions of dollars in reconstruction money. As a result, the official said, the Iraqis threatened to withdraw their money from U.S. banks.
It’s impossible to say at this moment whether the president and congressional leaders will seek to alter other provisions of the massive defense bill, but so far, all the discussion has been about this particular provision.
It seems a relatively minor disagreement in a massive bill that — among other vital provisions — raises soldiers’ pay, restores much equipment to the National Guard, improves military medical coverage, provides increased educational and housing support for soldiers and their families, enlarges the Army and Marines, repairs military facilities, increases research funding, pays for aircraft, ships and Stryker vehicles and improves oversight of U.S. contractors.
For now, we’ll take the administration at its word — that a fix can be worked out quickly, will focus on the no-immunity provision and will not endanger the pay raises passed by Congress.
It’s a little troubling that this disagreement hadn’t been cleared up before Christmas and that it took the Iraqi government to raise the crucial threat of withdrawing its assets from U.S. jurisdiction. But there’s no question that it would be damaging for a wobbly Iraqi government to lose control of its money because of lawsuits filed in this country.
If Congress deems it essential to open certain legal avenues to potential plaintiffs against the government of Iraq or other countries, it should consider the matter separately, probably by addressing Iraq’s concern about having its assets frozen. But it’s not an issue that should hold up the speedy passage and enactment of the defense bill.
—The Portland Oregonian
