Outgoing Congressman Michael McNulty and freshman Congresswoman Kirstin Gillibrand are being called on by Women Against War to remove their sponsorship of resolution that takes a tough stance on Iran.
The group says the resolution being supported by the two Democrats calls for a blockade of Iran and could result in a direct military confrontation with the country.
McNulty told Spotlight Newspapers he does not intend to remove his name as a sponsor and that Resolution 362 calls for economic sanctions if Iran does not comply with the non-proliferation treaty it has ratified.
It’s a resolution to place pressure on Iran to suspend their nuclear enrichment activity, McNulty said. `A number of people have characterized this as a blockade. It’s a legislative vehicle; it’s not a binding law, it will not be something sent to the president to sign.`
These types of resolutions are referred to as `a sense of congress,` or an opinion that urges actions or issues.
Maud Easter, a spokeswoman for Women Against War, said the strong language used in the resolution is eerily familiar to that used before the Iraq invasion and that she doesn’t want to see another war.
`This is very poignant for McNulty. He voted for the authorization that gave Bush the green light to go to war with Iraq and subsequently said he made a mistake and apologized and I respect him very much for that,` Easter said. `We don’t want him, and don’t really think he would want, to make the same mistake again.`
The resolution doesn’t use the word blockade, but states that economic sanctions could be imposed through the use of search and detainment.
`Whereas the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran was secretly working on the design and manufacture of a nuclear warhead until at least 2003,` the resolution states, `but that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009.`
In order to curtail Iran’s nuclear activity the resolution `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; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating.`
McNulty said he understands the group’s concerns but that there is a clause in the resolution that states, `Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.`
The congressman said Resolution 362 is meant purely as a diplomatic measure to deal with Iran.
`It doesn’t mention anything about a blockade. I’m supporting the clause that says there will be no military action,` McNulty said. `There’s a natural skepticism about the Bush Administration, which I share.`
McNulty said he is against Iran having nuclear capability.
`Prohibiting Iran from having a nuclear program is a good thing,` he said. `This is a nuclear non-proliferation resolution.`
Easter said she doesn’t buy it and that the resolution would set the stage for a military conflict with Iran.
`I think it’s a contradiction of terms, I mean it requires the president to set up this blockade,` said Easter. `That clause is in ignorance of international law because this would be seen as an act of war.`
Easter and other members of Women Against War met with McNulty’s chief of staff in Albany on Thursday, July 31, and is scheduled to meet with McNulty in person on Monday, Aug. 4, to discuss the issue once he returns from Washington D.C.
The group is also arranging a meeting with Gillibrand.
“
