Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, during the historic visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to Syria earlier this week, Syria's new president Bashar al-Assad, in a speech welcoming the Pope in Damascus, spewed forth the most vile and vicious anti-Semitism. He said that the Jews ``tried to kill the principles of all religions with the same mentality in which they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet Muhammad.'' This venomous remark was in stark contrast to the theme that the Pope voiced during his visit to Syria--peace and understanding. This was reflected in his visit to the Great Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, the first visit by any Pope to a Moslem house of worship. His Holiness on that occasion called for a ``new attitude of understanding and respect'' between Muslims, Christians and Jews. The Wall Street Journal yesterday editorially expressed the concern for the response from President Bashar Assad and others in Syria. ``But instead of being met by reciprocal gestures, Sheik Kuftaro, with Syrian President Bashar Assad, used the Pope's visit to showcase their own intolerance. The Sheik delivered a speech urging Christians and Muslims to line up against `Jews and Zionists.' Assad helpfully reminded the Pope of the role played by Jews in the death of Christ. And from Syria's state-controlled media came the line that Israelis were `enemies of God and faith.''' The Journal also noted that vicious anti-Semitism which the Pope's visit brought out in his hosts is certainly not limited to Syria alone. The editorial quoted an Arab school text: `` `Perhaps Allah brought the Jews to our land so that their demise would be here,' reads a characteristic passage of a Palestinian textbook for children. In Egypt, popular columnist Ahmad Ragab recently wrote, `Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of this earth.' The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious anti-Semitic tract penned in czarist Russia, remains in wide circulation throughout the Middle East.'' Mr. Speaker, how much at odds with the purpose and message of the Papal visit were the vile words of President Assad. He used the occasion of the Papal visit to throw gasoline on the flames of anti- Semitism at a time when this region of the world is most in need of soothing remarks and racial healing. I welcome the condemnation of the statements of President Bashar Assad that have appeared in the a large number of American newspapers. Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post published an excellent editorial yesterday criticizing Bashar Assad's vicious anti-Semitic, outrageous and inflammatory statements. I ask that this editorial be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read it. Vile Words Editorial, The Washington Post, Tuesday, May 8, 2001 SYRIAN PRESIDENT Bashar Assad on Saturday offered a vivid, if vile, demonstration of why he and his government are unworthy of respect or good relations with the United States or any other democratic country. Greeting Pope John Paul II in Damascus, Mr. Assad launched an attack on Jews that may rank as the most ignorant and crude speech delivered before the pope in his two decades of travel around the world. Comparing the suffering of the Palestinians to that of Jesus Christ, Mr. Assad said that the Jews ``tried to kill the principles of all religions with the same mentality in which they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet Muhammad.'' With that libel, the Syrian president stained both his country and the pope, who so far has failed to adequately respond. He also confirmed something about himself that has become increasingly clear during the months since he inherited the presidency from his father: This 35-year-old naif is headed in a dangerous direction. John Paul's decision to visit Syria and to become the first pontiff to visit a mosque offered Mr. Assad a remarkable opportunity. The former ophthalmologist has been struggling to establish himself as a credible leader both in and outside of Syria, and could have drawn on the pope's enormous prestige by welcoming his latest attempt to reach out to another faith. But Mr. Assad seems to have little understanding of the world outside Damascus, or how he can productively relate to it. Since taking office, he has abandoned his father's uneven efforts to reach out to Israel and the West and instead taken a series of militant and provocative steps, ranging from increased support for the Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon to the illegal export of hundreds of millions of dollars of Iraqi oil through a Syrian pipeline. At an Arab conference in March he proposed the reinstitution of a boycott against Israel, saying the Israelis were ``worse than the Nazis.'' The Arab leaders wisely ignored his proposal, while his rhetoric drew widespread condemnation. Having evidently learned nothing from that episode, Mr. Assad sought Saturday to recruit the pope and the Catholic Church for his war against Jews. Vatican officials maintained that the pope did not have prior notice of Mr. Assad's medieval appeal, and the pontiff's own words implicitly rejected it. But the Vatican's response to Mr. Assad was shockingly blase, considering the effort John Paul has made to repudiate the church's own history of anti-Semitism. ``We are guests of the president and he expressed his opinion,'' said longtime papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls. ``I wouldn't call it strong; I would call it clear.'' What is clear is that Mr. Assad converted a visit meant to symbolize tolerance and reconciliation into a display of obtuseness by the Vatican in the face of religious ignorance and hatred. During the past decade the United States engaged diplomatically with Mr. Assad's father, gaining his support in the Persian Gulf War and drawing him into the Middle East peace process. Despite the totalitarian nature of his regime and its sponsorship of terrorism, Hafez Assad seemed to understand that peace with Israel and engagement with the West offered the only way forward for his country. His son clearly does not--and should be treated accordingly.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a valued member of the committee, and my friend and colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a valued member of the committee.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my friend and colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a valued member of the committee. (Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and I ask all of my colleagues to oppose it as well. Clearly there is not a single Member of this House on either side who is not fully, enthusiastically and without any reservation and qualification in favor of protecting our military personnel serving abroad. That is clearly not the issue that this amendment raises. As my friend and colleague from Massachusetts so eloquently and precisely outlined, there is no chance of American military personnel being tried by the International Criminal Court. That court, once it comes into being on a permanent basis, is not designed to deal with servicemen and servicewomen performing peacekeeping or other duties overseas. The International Criminal Court is designed to deal with international criminals. At the end of World War II, the United States led the way in obtaining international justice by helping to establish the Nuremberg trials and playing the key role in the Nuremberg Tribunal. At the moment, international criminals who perpetrated the most outrageous violations of human rights, including mass rape and mass murder, are before an ad hoc International Criminal Court which deals with events in the former Yugoslavia during the early 1990s. In dealing with this legislation, Nobel prize winner Elie Wiesel wrote to the committee in part as follows: Fifty years ago the United States led the world in the prosecution of Nazi leaders for the atrocities of World War II. The triumph of Nuremberg was not only that individuals were held accountable for their crimes but that they were tried in a court of law supported by the community of nations. A vote for this amendment would mean our acceptance of the impunity of the world's worst atrocities. The memory of the victims of past genocide and war crimes compels us to take this issue, the issue of an International Criminal Court, seriously. Now, it is important to note that the proposals discussed in Rome were not perfect. We were proposing modifications and amendments. And I think it is critical we remain engaged in that process. But to flat out oppose the creation of an International Criminal Court is not worthy of this body. I would also like to mention, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) so accurately and effectively indicated a few minutes ago, that our servicemen and women will be tried by military courts of our own if they engage in transgressions. The notion that international criminal courts are designed to punish U.S. servicemen is one that escapes me and many of my colleagues. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment which is unquestionably well intended but is widely off the mark. We are talking about international war criminals such as the ones in Bosnia, such as the ones in Kosovo, such as the ones during the Second World War in Germany and not American servicemen and women doing their duty. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to close. Mr. Chairman, no Member of this body is in favor of having American servicemen or servicewomen tried by an International Criminal Court. As we outlined earlier, our service people abroad are tried by our own military courts. We are in favor of establishing an International Criminal Court similar to the one at the end of the Second World War, the Nuremberg Tribunal, and similar to the one currently dealing with international criminals of the former Yugoslavia's bloodshed. I ask my colleagues to vote against the DeLay amendment.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I deeply regret that my good friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I had to offer this amendment to condition our U.N. arrears payment on the resumption of our membership on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. I think it is important to analyze what happened at the vote in Geneva carefully. There are three seats reserved for the western nations and there were four candidates. I predict that every single time this should happen in the future, we will be rejected, because we are the most articulate and principled and outspoken proponents of human rights. Austria does not irritate anybody. The Austrians are getting the votes, but the United States is not getting the votes, because we speak out on human rights violations in Cuba and China and Sudan and Libya and Syria and all over the world. And there are many more human rights violators, Mr. Chairman, than countries that honor human rights. So in a very fundamental and mechanical sense, the failure of our being on the Human Rights Commission as we speak is the result of the failure of our European friends to act together; and I hope that next year when this similar vote will take place, they will designate only two of their members, so the United States will be the third one and we will be voted again to serve on the Human Rights Commission of which we have been, since its inception, the single most important, most powerful, and most principled member. It is a separate issue, Mr. Chairman, that 14 members apparently who have given our Department of State written assurances that they will vote for us, taking advantage of the secret ballot, chose not to do so. Now, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and I are proposing a reasonable and moderate amendment. Our amendment calls for paying our current tranche which is due, almost $600 million, without any delay, and to make our last payment, over $200 million, contingent upon the United States being voted back on to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Earlier this morning I had an opportunity to have a lengthy telephone conversation with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan; and I explained to him the procedure, which he clearly understands. It is our intention to pay every dime we owe the United Nations, but we will simply not turn the other cheek as the Sudans and the Lybias of this world declare the United States unfit to serve on the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. One important provision of our legislation calls on our representative at the U.N. to insist that no nation may serve on the U.N. Human Rights Commission that does not allow on its territory international human rights monitors. When this provision prevails, the Cubas and the Chinas and the Sudans and the Lybias of this world will have no opportunity to serve on the Human Rights Commission. The Hyde-Lantos amendment is a reasonable response to an outrage that was perpetrated in Geneva. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and I would like to respond to some of these editorials. Some of us do not accept the sanctity of our Western European friends. They would stand on firmer moral ground if they would stand with the United States in our dealings with Iran or Iraq or Syria or other totalitarian states. Actions have consequences. The United States was fully prepared to make these payments, but the situation has changed with encouragement on the part of some of our ``friends.'' There is great glee that the United States was booted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission where unquestionably we were the most important, most valuable, most articulate, and most principal member for over half a century. And while I am very pleased to see my friend defending the Bush administration in this instance, I do not. I believe the Bush administration is dead wrong in saying that we should turn the other cheek. Actions have consequences. We had an arrogant and irresponsible action: booting the leading champion of human rights off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I am proposing a modest response, a temporary withholding of a portion of our dues. Our U.N. fellow members have an option. If they would like to get this payment, they will vote the United States back on to the Commission. If they do not, it will cost them $244 million. And I urge France or Austria or anybody else to come up with that money, because certainly the United Nations needs those funds. I think it is important that we do not engage in blaming the United States first. We are the least responsible party for this action. The people who are responsible for this action are the Chinese, who went around trying to get votes against us by economic incentives and by threats; the Cubans, who did the same; and a number of our quote- unquote ``friends,'' who shall remain nameless. Mr. Chairman, I proudly join my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) in this measure. This will teach countries a lesson: actions have consequences. They have taken an irresponsible action, and we are giving them an opportunity to rectify it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend and colleague. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), whose action was strongly approved by members of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, arguably the most respected Republican Secretary of State of recent decades is George Shultz. In 1984, Secretary Shultz recommended that we withdraw from the United Nations; and many of us, myself included, supported him because the UNESCO at that time was a corrupt anti-American organization. It has cleaned up its act. Our former Secretary of State, Republican George Shultz, and our former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Democrat, are recommending now that we rejoin UNESCO. I find it almost ludicrous that we spent the previous hour debating the United States being voted off a U.N. body. Here we have an opportunity of joining a U.N. body, the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. It is waiting for us with open arms. We are debating as to whether we should enter an organization which has over 180 members. The United States is conspicuous by its absence, and the lack of a United States voice on UNESCO is hurting our foreign policy and international interests. I urge all of my colleagues to reject the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), to preserve the action taken in the Committee on International Relations, and usher in a new era of U.S. participation in UNESCO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)