The Burton Blog

Why the Arab Spring is cause for concern

The series of revolutions unfolding across the Middle East — collectively known as the “Arab Spring” — is turning the Middle Eastern political landscape on its head. However, instead of enhancing democracy, these revolutions are putting secular freedom at greater risk.

For the larger part of this year, our government has been supporting and encouraging the revolutionary movements in the region, confident that the anti-government forces that drove out their authoritarian leaders will embrace democratic ideals. After nearly 10 months of U.S. support and encouragement, it’s becoming clear that the Arab Spring is, in fact, a turning point for democracy in the region — a turning point away from democracy.

Few on the world stage liked or trusted Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak or Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh. It’s good news that their reigns are over. All were despots who victimized their countrymen through political corruption and unbridled intimidation. But these strongmen also served as important counterbalances to the undercurrents of radicalism in their countries and were able to suppress the threat presented by extremists. As the old adage goes, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.

Since President Obama is now supporting the opposition movements, we must ask these two important questions: “Who will emerge as these countries’ new leaders?” and “What will be their intentions toward the United States?” Though these questions remain unanswered, there is cause for concern.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, newly named the “Freedom and Justice Party,” is positioned to assume control of Egypt’s new government. But the group’s new name and prominence in the country has done little to temper its members’ vitriolic rhetoric. In response to the most recent violence in the Sinai, the group’s leadership released a statement demanding that the Israeli ambassador be expelled from Egypt and that the peace treaty between the two countries be renegotiated. Make no mistake, the Brotherhood’s goal is to fashion Egypt into a 21st-century Islamic society.

In neighboring Libya, the rebels, who can thank NATO for their victory, are poised to inherit Gaddafi’s regime. As in Egypt, signs are emerging that the democratic-loving rebels may abandon their principles once they take power. An alleged draft constitutional charter for Libya’s transitional government has surfaced on the Internet containing a clause stating that “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence [Sharia].” While this alleged charter also contains many items familiar to Western democracies, we have yet to see Islamic law and democracy flourish side by side.

Despite these facts, President Obama has continued to put faith in the good intentions of the rebels. According to published reports, the Obama administration is looking to unfreeze about $37 billion in Libyan assets as a way to get funding to Libya’s Transitional National Council, which the U.S. has recognized as the legitimate authority in Libya. Given the U.S.’s past experience with nation-building, I am wary of any ongoing U.S. support.

In Yemen, opposition forces lit up the streets against President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who predictably resorted to the despot’s playbook and violently retaliated against his own people. In June, Saleh was wounded in an attack on his compound and fled to Saudi Arabia for treatment. The power vacuum created by his departure left Yemen in crisis. Although Saleh loyalists continue to hold on, al Qaeda is exploiting the political upheaval. According to an August 12, 2011 article in The New York Times, American officials believe that al Qaeda’s most direct threat to the United States comes from its Yemeni affiliate, which is “capitalizing on the virtual collapse of Yemen’s government to widen its area of control in the country, and is strengthening its operational ties to the Shabab, the Islamic militancy in Somalia, to exploit the chaos in both countries.”

The United States cannot be expected to provide substantial support to regimes whose motives are unknown. This is the dilemma facing President Obama. But instead of looking before he leaps, President Obama is leaping before he looks. The president has taken a number of other foreign policy risks, like stretching out his hand to known enemies of the United States, like Iran. Hopefully, he has learned from those mistakes and will be cautious in his engagement with these emerging governments.

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) is a senior member on the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rep. Burton Condemns President Obama’s Abuse of War Powers Resolution

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN-05) issued the following statement condemning the President's use of military force in Libya without consulting the United States Congress:

“For almost three months now, the American people have waited for a compelling rationale from our President as to why American military forces are in harm's way on Libyan soil.  To this day, we have yet to receive any guidance from the Administration.   And while the President thought it prudent to confer with and seek approval from NATO, the United Nations Security Council and the Arab League, he neither consulted with the United States Congress nor sought its approval for his actions. This decision has placed the President in direct violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution as well as Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution.  The Founder's intentions were abundantly clear when they included this maxim in our Constitution. The President is not a king and he should not be allowed to act like one.

“To quote then- Senator Obama from 2007: ‘The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.’   For the past two months though 12, 909 US service personnel have been engaged in combat operations against Libya's army at a cost to the US taxpayers of $700 Million and climbing.  Our planes have flown over 200 sorties, fired 228 missiles - 90 percent of the overall total - and dropped 455 bombs.  Yet, President Obama has offered no discernible evidence of the actual or imminent threat to our Nation which prompted him to launch this war.    If we are not there to address an immediate threat to our Nation’s security, then what are we there for?   If the President has seen fit to enter Libya without direction or the approval of Congress, where else could he go; Syria, Yemen or the Ivory Coast?   These are questions that still remain unanswered.

“The President’s actions are arrogant and irresponsible.  We can no longer allow the President to act with impunity when our Nation's fighting men and women's lives are potentially at stake. His refusal to follow the letter or spirit of our Constitution is galling and cannot be allowed to continue unchecked.”

Dan speaks out on trade with Iran

The Boston Globe ran an article last week covering a Congressional hearing on trade with Iran.

The Associated Press reported Tuesday that the value of U.S. exports to Iran has grown significantly during President Bush's years in office -- from about $8 million in 2001 to nearly $150 million last year. The exports, made under agricultural, medical and humanitarian exemptions to U.S. trade sanctions, included cigarettes, bull semen, corn, soybeans and medicine, among other goods.

"It's that kind of mixed signal that has led to the kind of situation that we're in right now," Obama said Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman, remarked on the growth in U.S. trade during comments on the European Union's recent move to toughen financial sanctions on Iran.

"It's time for them to take far more significant steps along the lines of cutting off all significant commerce with Iran, as we did years ago -- or at least I thought we did. I'm not so sure, after yesterday's Associated Press report that U.S. exports to Iran have increased nearly twenty-fold during the Bush administration years, up to nearly $150 million in 2007," Berman, D-Calif., said at a committee hearing Wednesday.

Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., said the growth in U.S. exports didn't make sense to him at a time when the United States was trying to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear efforts. He said the United States needs to set a strong example for the rest of the world on Iran.

"I understand it's the government we're after, and not the people, but nevertheless if the people are upset, they're going to put pressure on the government, and some pressure on the people over there by cutting off trade with them in certain areas that they want would also be very, very beneficial," Burton said.

Dan Burton on Helms-Burton

I don't think we've posted this before.

Dan Burton: Stay tough on terrorism in Iraq

The Indianapolis Star took some time away from childish editorializing to actually do some reporting today.

Reps. Dan Burton and Mike Pence warned Wednesday against the United States leaving Iraq too soon.

"What would happen if we had a very precipitous pullout, or if we hung in there to win this battle?" Burton, R-Indianapolis, asked at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Iraq, responded that a change in the administration's approach to troop reductions "as conditions permit" could "risk failure in Iraq."

"My judgment is that where conditions are at this time, that you would see a spiral down," Crocker said. "And that would lead to expanded sectarian conflict at levels we probably have not seen before. It would bring the neighbors, especially Iran, into the fight. And it would create space for al-Qaida to root itself on Arab soil."

Burton said it's important for the public to hear that because the war is unpopular, and the country is about to pick a new president who could change policy.

Dan Burton editorial in Miami Herald

TBB noticed that the Miami Herald printed this great editorial authored by the Boss.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are once again making major headlines -- this time with what appears to be backing by the Venezuelan and Ecuadorean governments. The FARC is well known for a large array of activities, including bombings, murder, mortar attacks, narco-trafficking, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking, as well as guerrilla and conventional military action against Colombian political, military and economic targets.

These actions are indefensible on any grounds and, when carried out by armed insurgents in such a manner, are acts of terrorism. In 1997 the FARC was added to the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations, securing a spot on the original FTOs list along with such organizations as Hamas and later joined by al Qaeda. Which is what makes the comments by Presidents Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela as reported in the press -- expressing outrage in response to Colombia's successful attack on a top FARC rebel leader and a large group of his guerrilla lackeys -- such an odd reaction, as well as quite telling.

Leaders across the world who aid, abet and defend terrorism work only to crush their people's hopes and dreams of a peaceful, prosperous future. Leaders who choose to promote peace and democracy over terrorism and war should be applauded and rewarded. This is why the U.S. Congress' decision to hold up the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, which was renegotiated to include additional labor and environmental regulations to appease influential groups in the U.S. Congress, is also an odd reaction.

The FARC has been terrorizing the Colombian people for more than 40 years, executing their missions with alarming precision while maintaining their prevalence and ability to garner around $1 billion in yearly income; feeding the insecurity in Colombia while fueling the drug war that the FARC perpetuates. The FARC's public mission is to overthrow the Colombian government and establish a communist-agrarian state.

However, despite all of these obstacles and more, Colombia has progressed by leaps and bounds over the past eight years. Roads are now open, displaced farmers are returning to their lands and economic growth topped more than 6.8 percent in 2007, the highest in eight years. The observance of human rights has improved, standards of governance have been enhanced and the fight against narcotics trafficking and illegal armed groups continues unabated. Citizens and foreign travelers alike have gained some precious security in their mobility.

Yet the FARC remains practically unscathed. In March 1999, the FARC executed three U.S. Indian rights activists in Venezuelan territory after it kidnapped them in Colombia. In February 2003, the FARC captured and continues to hold three U.S. contractors, and it killed one other American and a Colombian when their plane crashed in Florencia, Colombia. Besides kidnapping for ransom, the FARC has well-documented ties to the full range of narcotics trafficking activities, including taxation, cultivation and distribution.

The U.S. Congress cannot continue to sit idly by while threats of military action are pursued by Ecuador and Venezuela against a true visionary leader and ally as is found in President Alvaro Uribe. We are asking our allies around the world to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us to fight terrorism, and we must not abandon the people of Colombia, who are doing this very task.

There is something that can prove more powerful and lasting than acts of terrorism and war, and that is inclusion in the international arena. It is time for U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stop delaying a vote on the ratification of the Colombian Trade Promotion Agreement. Chávez has clarified that either the United States must bolster true leaders in the region who have stood up for freedom and democracy, or we will be left to watch the southern portion of our hemisphere crumble into disarray before our eyes. It is now up to the leadership in the U.S. Congress to choose our path.

U.S. Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., is ranking member of the International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

Helms-Burton still stands for Cuban freedom

Many of our loyal TBB readers know about the Helms-Burton act, passed in 1996, that stood strong against Fidel Castro. It's been back in the news last week now that the dictator Fidel has stepped down to pass power to his dictator brother, Raul. The Winston-Salem Journal has a good article on the issue. You can also check out Congressman Burton on Hardball discussing it.

From the Winston-Salem Journal:

A 1996 law championed by then-Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C, keeps the United States’ hard-line stance toward Cuba intact until the country has a Democratic government that “does not include Fidel Castro or Raul Castro.”

Policy specialists on Cuba widely expect that Castro’s brother, Raul Castro, will be named president next week.

“It turned out to be sort of prescient, that legislation,” said Roger Noriega, a former foreign-affairs aide to Helms and now a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. “It’s clear now that 18 months after Fidel Castro turned over control of the government to his brother ... Raul shows no more interest in opening up (Cuba) than Fidel did.”

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee in the mid-1990s, Helms was perhaps Castro’s most forceful opponent in Washington.

In 1996, he and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., co-wrote the Helms-Burton Act, which strengthened trade and travel sanctions against Cuba, for the first time penalizing foreign companies that did business with both Cuba and the United States.

The legislation forms the basis for the nation’s current posture toward Cuba. The Bush administration made clear yesterday that the departure of Castro by itself would not lead to the removal of travel or trade bans.

“The changing of the guard is not significant of and by itself,” The Associated Press quoted Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for State Department, as saying. “The general analysis is that Raul Castro is ‘Fidel lite.’ He is simply a continuation of the Castro regime, of the dictatorship.”

Dan Burton in Washington Times

Read the whole article here.

Two senior House Foreign Affairs Committee members last week called on the Bush administration to stop cutting financial assistance to Brazil.

Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana Republican, called Brazil a key U.S. ally in Latin America, especially at a time when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is "trying to stir things up."

Responses to Burton's editorial in the Washington Times

There were some recent responses to Dan's editorial in the Washington Times.

Kosovo's future

Because of Rep. Dan Burton's minority voice of integrity on the Kosovo question, I momentarily recognize my country again ("Negotiating for peace in Kosovo," Commentary, Monday). Mr. Burton reminds America that a monoethnic, monoreligious, Saudi- and heroin-financed peace isn't a success, that there are still such things as international laws, borders, sovereignty, human rights, dangerous precedents and negotiations without a predetermined outcome.

If anyone wonders why the Bush administration is on the same page as the Clintonites that "there is no option but independence," that "there can be no compromise on independence," that "Kosovo must be independent" and "Kosovo will be independent," as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated it's because when it comes to the gangsterland that is the Balkans, our leaders have a virtual gun pointed at our NATO troops there. In Kosovo, our leaders behave alternately as hostages and gangsters.

The Dan Burtons out there are but a handful, and, like the pro-independence camp, they include a bipartisan crew: Reps. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican; Gus Bilirakis, Florida Republican; Melissa Bean, Illinois Democrat; Diane Watson, California Democrat; and Howard Berman, California Democrat; and, while they were in office, Sen. Rick Santorum and Amb. John Bolton. Both the Democrats and the Republicans in this camp still show a shred of decency long surrendered by the John McCains, Eliot Engels, Tom Lantoses, Joseph Bidens and Dana Rohrabachers, and they will be the ones to save America's soul and future. For that is what hangs in the balance in Kosovo.

JULIA GORIN
New York City

The Washington Times is to be complimented for publishing the comprehensive summary by Rep. Dan Burton of the ongoing efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the small Serbian province of Kosovo an area as big as Rhode Island and with a mixed population of 2 million Albanians, Serbs, Roma and others.

In 1999, the U.S.-led NATO waged an intensive bombing war from 20,000 feet against Serbian military and civilian infrastructures as a humanitarian intervention. The goal was to force an end to the attempts by Serbian authorities to combat and put down the provocations by an Albanian insurgency euphemistically calling itself the Kosovo Liberation Army. After 78 days, the bombing finally succeeded in forcing an agreement requiring the removal of all Serbian military and police from Kosovo.

However, a lasting peace was not established, even in the presence of more than 40,000 U.N. troops known as KFOR. The KLA quickly morphed into the KPC, the Kosovo Protection Corps, with the tacit approval of KFOR. Albanian-organized criminal groups exploited these developments by joining with corrupt Albanian politicians. Kosovo today is known as a major supplier of much of the heroin reaching Europe. Kosovo recently was described succinctly by a U.N. spokesperson as "a society founded on organized crime."

Recognizing the independence of Kosovo, which, as Mr. Burton notes, is an obsession within the U.S. State Department and supported by President Bush, would impose from the outside a resolution to a problem that will be inconsistent with international laws and standards of long standing and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244. After eight years, the province's economy is still a basket case except for those few groups associated with illegal activities.

I thank Mr. Burton and The Washington Times for so clearly articulating the "ground truth" regarding the issue of an independent Kosovo.

NORMAN F. NESS
Professor emeritus
University of Delaware
Newark, Del.