Fletcher School Professor Michael Glennon testified on Feb. 8 before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, asserting that the Constitution prevents President George Bush from negotiating security agreements with Iraq without congressional approval.
"The Constitution commits the president to make non-binding policy assurances, but if he makes a binding security commitment to come to the defense of Iraq, some form of congressional approval is required," the international law professor told the Daily in an interview.
According to Glennon, an agreement currently under negotiation follows a Nov. 26 proposal that would commit the United States to defending Iraq against foreign aggression as well as internal and external threats.
"The [Bush] administration's position on this agreement wasn't completely clear, and that was part of the problem," Glennon said. "One of the efforts of the committee was to clarify the administration's intentions and try to determine what options it was carving out for itself."
He explained that much of the agreement relates to rules that will govern the continued activities and presence of the American armed forces in Iraq.
"It deals with which law will apply, for example - American or Iraqi law, which immunities [the Iraqis] will have, which courts will try law violators," he said.
He added that these kinds of issues are traditionally dealt with in the agreements made between a country that is sending troops to another and the nation that receives the troops. Known as Status of Forces Agreements, or SOFAS, they are used to define the terms under which the military can operate.
"Many of these agreements have not been approved by Congress," Glennon said. "But the point of my testimony is that if the president wishes to include a security agreement, then Congress is required to approve it, and that SOFAS in the past have not included security agreements."
The Committee on Foreign Affairs focuses on issues related to foreign affairs and international relations.
"They cover a wide variety of things ... including state department oversight, foreign assistance, human rights, international organizations ... everything related to America's role in the world," Glennon said.
According to Glennon, the debate surrounding the president's right to make security commitments without congressional approval has been prominent for some time.
"In a constitutional democracy, nothing is more important than ensuring that the executive [branch] is subject to the law," he said. "Under the United States Constitution, the president is not an elected king; he is subject to constitutional restraints and can commit the nation to defend another nation's security only when Congress or the Senate approves."
Glennon explained that he has been involved with the House of Representatives since the 1970s, when he acted as legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the same kind of issues.
"The committee for which I worked was concerned that the constitutional prerogatives of the Senate were not being respected," Glennon said. He cited military arrangements in Spain and security commitments to Vietnam as issues he focused on.
Glennon said that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have both stated that the United States does not intend to include a security commitment in the agreement being negotiated with Iraq. The professor remains skeptical.
"I think that's welcome news, but of course the devil is in the details," he said.
While Glennon spends most of his time teaching international law at Fletcher, he plans to continue his involvement with the House.
"It's always a privilege to participate in congressional oversight hearings such as this one, and to the extent that my schedule permits I'm honored to give Congress my opinions on these sorts of questions," he said.
