Speaking of Blockades
In the previous post, I mentioned the U.S. naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 that almost led to nuclear war. Did you know there is a bill in Congress right now that includes the following language:
Congress… demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran….
(Underlining is mine for emphasis. For the full text of the legislation, here is a link to the Library of Congress website.)
Most people who have read this language, including international law attorneys, understand it to mean that it authorizes a naval blockade of Iran.
There are currently 280 Cosponsors for this bill, H.CON.RES.362. It needs only 218 ‘Yes’ votes to pass in the House of Representatives, where the bill originated. It then needs to go to the Senate, where 51 votes are needed to pass. There are currently 51 Cosponsors for a similar bill, S.RES.580,although that one does not have the specific blockade language.
Note that both bills are resolutions “expressing the sense of Congress”. That means they formally request the President to do something. The President is then free to do as they suggest, or not.
Do you think that President Bush would not be pleased to implement a blockade of Iran if the bills pass? I wonder about his successor, whoever that will be. One would definitely favor a blockade, and more. I believe the other one, from his statements about economic sanctions, would see it in a favorable light as well.
Both bills are currently sitting quietly in committee. The latest Cosponsor to sign onto 362 was Rep. Mary Bono Mack of California, on September 25. There are all sorts of behind-the-scenes things going on, and I truly can’t tell why the bill is not moving forward toward the floor of the House for a final vote and quick passage.
Maybe the timing isn’t right yet. Or perhaps simply the fact that the bills exist with such wide cosponsorship is sufficient to make our representatives’ support for a blockade implicitly understood by the President. That way they don’t have to risk the political dangers of a formal vote.
Remember, these bills are just a request from Congress. The President, in the current state of our State, apparently can mount a blockade without Congressional approval. He doesn’t actually need the bills to pass in order to make a blockade happen. He’s the Commander In Chief of our military forces. And as I mentioned in the last post, a blockade is not actually a declaration of war, according to international law.
It’s only when the blockade is enforced that it turns to war. And surely, that would not be our fault. It would be the fault of the ship trying to get through the blockade. Right?
