Paul Cook on Foreign Policy

Condemn China's organ harvesting from Falun Gong prisoners.

RESOLUTION expressing concern over persistent and credible reports of systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience, in the People's Republic of China, including from large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners imprisoned for their religious beliefs, and members of other religious and ethnic minority groups.

• Whereas the People's Republic of China performs more than10,000 organ transplantations per year;
• Whereas the Department of State Country Report on Human Rights for China for 2011 reported 'instances of organ harvesting, particularly from Falun Gong practitioners and Uighurs';
• Whereas the People's Republic of China implemented regulations in 1984 that permitted the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners;
• Whereas Falun Gong, a spiritual practice involving meditative exercises, with the number of practitioners upwards of 70,000,000;
• Whereas in July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intensive, nationwide persecution designed to eradicate the spiritual practice of Falun Gong

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
1. calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China to immediately end the practice of organ harvesting from all prisoners, and particularly from Falun Gong prisoners of conscience and members of other religious and ethnic minority groups;
2. calls for a full and transparent investigation into organ transplant practices;
3. demands an immediate end to the 14-year persecution of the Falun Gong spiritual practice;
4. recommends that the United States State Department issue a travel warning for US citizens traveling to China for organ transplants informing them that the organ source for their operation may be a prisoner of conscience; and
5. recommends that the US Government publicly condemn organ transplantation abuses in China and ban the entry of those who have participated in illegal removal of human tissues and organs.

Move US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; recognize as cap.

Congressional Summary: States that it is US policy to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, and that the US Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem by 2017.

Supporters reasons for voting YEA: (Times of Israel ): Congressional legislation would force the Obama administration to change longstanding US policy and move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The bill challenges presidential authority on a key foreign policy question. The bill strikes the language in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 that gave the president waiver authority to delay the move. Every president since Bill Clinton has signed a presidential waiver every six months in order to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv, citing concerns that a move to Jerusalem would upset the prospects for a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1980, but the US, like all other countries, maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (The Morning Call, April 16, 1984) The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the National Association of Arab Americans (NAAA) have begun a "multifaceted protest" opposing moving the US. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Israel annexed East Jerusalem from Jordan after capturing it in the 1967 war but assured free access to religious shrines. The nations of the Arab League argue that the Israelis are in Jerusalem as an "army of occupation" and they have never recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. One compromise would be the placement of the American Consulate in Jerusalem with the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. Secretary of State George P. Shultz cautioned that a relocation "would fan Islamic extremism, possibly inciting a wave of violence against our citizens, diplomats and installations in the region."

Two-state solution despite Israeli settlements on West Bank.

Congressional Summary: S.Res.6/H.Res.11 objects to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which characterizes Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and demands cessation of settlement activities.

• Calls for such resolution to be repealed or fundamentally altered and allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties.
• Notes that granting membership and statehood standing to the Palestinians at the UN, its specialized agencies, and other international institutions outside of the context of a bilateral peace agreement with Israel would cause severe harm to the peace process.
• Urges upholding the U.S. practice of vetoing all Security Council resolutions that recognize unilateral Palestinian actions or dictate terms and a time line for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
• Reaffirms that it is U.S. policy to seek a sustainable, just, and secure two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Opposing argument: (Cato Institute, Dec. 19, 2003): In principle, separation seems the best answer to stop the killing. For this reason, a security fence makes sense--if it actually separates Jew from Arab. Unfortunately, to protect a number of disparate Israeli settlements erected in the midst of Palestinian communities, Israel currently is mixing Jew and Arab and separating Arab from Arab. Thus are sown the seeds for conflict. After 36 years of occupation, the land remains almost exclusively Arab. The limited Jewish presence is the result of conscious colonization. The settlements require a pervasive Israeli military occupation, imposing a de facto system of apartheid. Separation offers the only hope, but separation requires dismantling Israeli settlements.