CLINTON’S NEXT FOREIGN POLICY FIASCO: ATHWART THE PUBLIC, CONGRESS ON THE GOLAN?

(Washington, D.C.) A new poll of the American people
conducted for the Center for Security Policy indicates mounting
trouble for one of the Clinton Administration’s most cherished —
and most secretive — foreign policy initiatives: the planned
deployment of U.S. troops on the disputed Golan Heights as part
of peace agreement now being negotiated between Israel and Syria.

A national poll of 1,000 American adults conducted on 2-3
January 1995 by the Luntz Research Company — the highly regarded
public opinion research firm headed by Frank Luntz — suggests
that the U.S. public wants no part of a Golan deployment and
expects Congress to head it off at the pass. The questions
posed by the poll and the
responses are attached, as is an href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=95-P_03at2″>article describing the results
published in this morning’s Washington Times by the
Center’s director, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

The poll indicates that 58% of the American people are
opposed to a U.S. deployment on the Golan, compared to only
35% who are in favor. What is more, of that 35% in favor,
nearly half (44%) say they would no longer support deployment if
they believed “U.S. military personnel would probably be
attacked by terrorists or be caught up in renewed fighting
between Syria and Israel in the future.”

Interestingly, a recent survey conducted in Israel by the
BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University
indicates that Israelis oppose the stationing of U.S. troops on
the Golan Heights by a similar margin (70% to 15%). In addition, the
new Israeli Chief of Staff, General Amnon Shahak, reportedly told
Israel’s TV Channel 1 on 4 December 1994, “It would be
unwise for Israel and the U.S. to station U.S. soldiers on the
Golan.”

Before the United States becomes committed to a step that the
American and Israeli people appear to agree would be
“unwise,” the Congress must promptly and carefully
consider the implications of such an initiative. The Center for
Security Policy believes that, given the Clinton Administration’s
effort to use a secret, Washington-based “backchannel”
negotiation to speed agreement between Israel and Syria, the
only opportunity legislators might have to undertake such an a
priori examination issue may be at hand: Within the next
few weeks, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to
hold nomination hearings on Martin Indyk’s appointment to
become U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Mr. Indyk has been a chief
architect of the Clinton Administration’s policy toward the
Israeli-Syrian negotiations and a principal in the
“backchannel” operation. The Center urges the Committee
to use these hearings as an occasion for reviewing not only Mr.
Indyk’s qualifications and judgment but also the policies that he
has been pursuing in Washington — and that he evidently hopes to
promote in Israel.

The Contract With America promises to require prior
congressional approval for virtually all proposals involving U.S.
participation in international peacekeeping operations. If the
November elections were not proof enough of popular feelings on
this score, the Luntz poll should be a clear signal that, in
the case of a Golan deployment at least, Americans expect their
elected representatives to have a say in this peacekeeping
initiative — and what they are to say is “No!”