Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for its alleged complicity in the terrorist attacks. President Barack Obama vetoed the bill, arguing it would not only undermine strong diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, but it would also weaken the long-standing tradition of sovereign immunity: the legal doctrine that no foreign nation can be held responsible from civil suit of prosecution. However, the veto was overridden by an overwhelming margin — 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House.
This bipartisan rejection of the president’s plea is shocking for several reasons: First of all, it was the first override of an Obama veto in his tenure. This bipartisan resistance could be attributed to congressional Democrats’ eagerness to look tough on terrorism in an election year, but it could also be an expression of discontent with the president’s passive foreign policy in the Middle East. More importantly, however, it shows Congress’ willingness to stand up to Saudi Arabia, a country that oppresses women, exports a particularly extreme strain of Islamism known as Wahhabism and has indiscriminately bombarded civilian targets in Yemen. Yet, the U.S. has never held Saudi Arabia accountable.
In addition to JASTA, last month the Senate voted on a resolution that restricts arms sales to Saudi Arabia until it stops targeting civilians in Yemen. Likewise, 27 senators voted against a $1.15-billion-dollar arms deal to Saudi Arabia. While neither of these initiatives proved successful, it nonetheless marks a shift in American attitudes toward Saudi Arabia, who until now has failed to put any serious pressure on the country for its dismal human-rights record. Not only does the U.S. have the power and leverage to shape domestic politics in foreign countries for the sake of human rights, but it is also its moral responsibility as the leader of the free world to do so. In 1974, President Nixon threatened to veto the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which revoked the USSR’s “most-favored-nation” status until it respected basic human rights, such as the right to emigrate. Although this bill revealed a similar incongruity between Congress and the president, as with JASTA, it applied pressure on the USSR to open its doors to emigration.
JASTA will not come without its drawbacks. Considering the U.S. is the most active country in foreign affairs, perhaps it has the most to lose from this breach of sovereign immunity. Some fear the U.S. will be on the receiving end of future lawsuits for the accidental killing of civilians in Syria or drone strikes in Pakistan, for example.
However, JASTA marks a step in the right direction for American foreign policy and a significant shift in the status quo of Saudi-U.S. relations. American pressure could bring about some changes in Saudi policies both at home and abroad. For now, we can only hope the next president will follow the lead of Congress, rather than continue the legacy of this president’s policy of complacency toward human-rights violators such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Julian Fleischman is a UF political science and telecommunication senior. His column appears on Fridays.
