!! History Commons Alert, Exciting News
Profile: William Delahunt
William Delahunt was a participant or observer in the following events:
William Delahunt. [Source: US House of Representatives]Democratic House members William Delahunt (D-MA) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) announce legislation that will prohibit the use of federal funds to implement any long-term diplomatic and security agreement the Bush administration may enter into with the Iraqi government (see March 7, 2008). The Bush administration has not yet acknowledged that such a pact requires the approval of Congress; Delahunt and DeLauro say that such approval is mandated by the Constitution. The White House disagrees, saying that the entire controversy was triggered by what it calls a sloppy Arabic-to-English translation of the “Declaration of Principles” agreed to by President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (see November 26, 2007); the declaration serves as the basis for the proposed agreement. The declaration states that the US will provide “security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters or airspace.” Such an agreement would be a long-term military commitment in Iraq and would, therefore, be a treaty. Treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. But a senior administration official says the translation of the “security assurances” phrase “was something we struggled with.” He says the original Arabic phrase was “translated in kind of an interesting way,” and a better translation might have been, “We’ll consult.” Democrats are skeptical of the White House explanation. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) says that when senators were recently briefed on the planned agreement, they “certainly did not speak to this unfortunate translation from Arabic.” Delahunt, who has co-chaired several hearings on the legality of the agreement, says he hasn’t heard this either, and says, “If it’s sloppy language, it borders on irresponsible to use words like ‘security assurances’ or ‘security commitments’ [when] their customary interpretation would be binding.” Bush officials say that Congress was indeed told about the problematic translation. Delahunt says he believes that the administration, having been “outed, if you will” by Congressional oversight, has decided that it is the “safe course” to argue that the words are not what they appear to be. And Webb’s spokeswoman, Jessica Smith, wonders why the White House did not “retranslate” the troublesome phrase before releasing the declaration. A Bush official says that the final version of the agreement will use the phrasing “consult” rather than “security assurances.” “There aren’t many countries that we give security guarantees to,” he says. [Politico, 3/13/2008]
President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently issued a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship” (see November 26, 2007) that would entail a possibly permanent US military presence in Iraq (see March 7, 2008). Although the Constitution requires Congressional approval to commit any US forces to a battle zone, Bush officials have refused to address that concern (see March 13, 2008). In a Senate hearing on April 8, 2008, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker says that the Bush administration has no plans to ask Congress for such permission—although the agreement would need to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. Crocker is asked by Hillary Clinton (D-NY) if an agreement would be submitted to the Iraqi Parliament, and Crocker replies: “The Iraqi government has indicated it will bring the agreement to the Council of Representatives. At this point, it is not clear, at least to me, whether that will be for a formal vote or whether they will repeat the process they used in November with the Declaration of Principles in which it was simply read to the members of the Parliament.” Clinton asks, “Does the administration plan to submit this agreement to our Congress?” and Crocker responds: “At this point, Senator, we do not anticipate the agreements will have within them any elements would require the advice and consent procedure. We intend to negotiate this as an executive agreement.” Yale law professor Oona Hathaway notes that such an agreement must be approved by Congress “either as a treaty or as a congressional-executive agreement.” [Think Progress (.org), 4/8/2008] Representative William Delahunt (D-MA) releases a letter from 31 Iraqi legislators to coincide with concurrent hearings in the House; the letter asserts that the Iraqi Parliament will not ratify any deal that does not provide a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops (see May 29, 2008).
Thirty-one Iraqi legislators write a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the entire US Congress emphasizing that their government has no intention of signing any security agreement with the US that does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. The US government is working to hammer out an agreement between itself and the Iraqi government that would provide for some temporary (see March 7, 2008) or permanent (see June 5, 2008) US presence in Iraq. On June 4, Representative William Delahunt (D-MA) will release the letter. The letter reads in part, “[T]he majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.” [US House of Representatives, 5/29/2008; Politico, 6/4/2008]
Two Iraqi lawmakers denounce a proposed deal that would provide for a permanent presence of US forces in Iraq (see March 7, 2008 and June 5, 2008). In a hearing of a House foreign affairs subcommittee chaired by William Delahunt (D-MA), two Iraqi legislators, Sheikh Khalaf al-Ulayyan and Professor Nadeem al-Jaberi, both lambast the deal. Al-Ulayyan is a Sunni cleric and al-Jaberi is a Shi’ite parliamentarian. Al-Jaberi says that the biggest problem with the deal is that it threatens Iraq’s sovereignty. “The Iraqi government right now does not have the full reign of its sovereignty, because of the thousands of foreign troops that are on its land,” he says. “And perhaps the Iraqi government does not have as of yet sufficient tools to run its own internal affairs. Therefore, I ask the American government not to embarrass the Iraqi government by putting it in a difficult situation with this agreement.” Since the status of the two nations is so unequal, al-Jabari says, the deal will likely “lead to more instability,” and they hope “any future agreement does not affect or impact Iraqi sovereignty, such as permanent military bases.” Any such security deal must wait until US troops have fully withdrawn from Iraq, he says. Al-Ulayyan says he wants to “salute the American people for their stand against the war, which we saw on TV in the form of demonstrations and protests.” While he warns against a precipitous withdrawal of US forces that might lead to “impotence and flaws in the security,” he notes that “protecting Iraq does not require signing long-term agreements like the one proposed, because [the US has] bases in surrounding countries like Kuwait, Jordan and so forth, and therefore, we don’t see any importance or need for military bases in Iraq.” [Washington Independent, 6/4/2008]
Receive weekly email updates summarizing what contributors have added to the History Commons database
Developing and maintaining this site is very labor intensive. If you find it useful, please give us a hand and donate what you can.
If you would like to help us with this effort, please contact us. We need help with programming (Java, JDO, mysql, and xml), design, networking, and publicity. If you want to contribute information to this site, click the register link at the top of the page, and start contributing.