Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) and Ranking Member Dick Lugar (R-IN) welcome the nomination of a Administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

“I am pleased that the Administration has announced their nominee, Dr. Rajiv Shah, to be the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),” said Chairman Kerry. “I have been very concerned about the lack of political leadership at USAID, especially in the face of critical foreign policy, humanitarian and development priorities in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Sudan. I also believe having an Administrator will bring significant momentum to foreign aid reform. I look forward to a thorough nomination process.”

“For development to play its full role in our national security structure, USAID must be a strong agency with the resources to accomplish the missions we give it,” Senator Lugar said. “The issues that we face today – from chronic poverty and hunger to violent acts of terrorism – require that we work seamlessly toward identifiable goals. I look forward to discussing ways to improve and support the development mission that benefits our long-term security as we proceed with the confirmation process.”

Earlier today at the White House, the President signed into law the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, also known as “Kerry-Lugar-Berman.”

This law is the tangible manifestation of broad support for Pakistan in the U.S., as evidenced by its bipartisan, bicameral, unanimous passage in Congress.

As President Obama said on March 27, the United States wants to engage Pakistan on the basis of a strategic partnership, “grounded in support for Pakistan’s democratic institutions and the Pakistani people.” This Act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States.

Why? Because the Pakistani military is in full-on freakout mode over the bill, and only 15 percent of Pakistanis view it favorably. Its provisions are portrayed in Pakistan as a push by the U.S. to dominate Pakistani affairs. And so here’s the full text of the (very long) legislative “intent,” after the jump.

The following is an explanation of S. 1707, the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009.  The final text of the legislation reflects an agreement reached by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.  The purpose of this Explanatory Statement is to facilitate accurate interpretation of the text and to ensure faithful implementation of its provisions in accordance with the intentions of the legislation.

The core intent of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act is to demonstrate the American people’s long-term commitment to the people of Pakistan.  The United States values its friendship with the Pakistani people and honors the great sacrifices made by Pakistani security forces in the fight against extremism, and the legislation reflects the goals shared by our two governments.

The legislation does not seek in any way to compromise Pakistan’s sovereignty, impinge on Pakistan’s national security interests, or micromanage any aspect of Pakistani military or civilian operations.  There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to the authorization of $7.5 billion in non-military aid.  The only requirements on this funding are financial accountability measures that Congress is imposing on the U.S. executive branch, to ensure that this assistance supports programs that most benefit the Pakistani people.

Summary of Congressional Intent

The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (the “Act”) establishes a legislative foundation for a strengthened partnership between the United States and Pakistan, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through strengthening democracy and the rule of law, sustainable economic development, and combating terrorism and extremism.  It is the intent of Congress to strengthen the long-term people-to-people relationship between the United States and Pakistan by investing directly in the needs of the Pakistani people.  This legislation is intended to fortify a lasting partnership with Pakistan based on mutual trust.

The overall level of economic assistance authorized annually by this legislation is tripled over FY 2008 U.S. funding levels, with the bulk of aid intended for projects such as schools, roads, medical clinics, and infrastructure development.  The funds directly authorized by this Act –  $1.5 billion in economic and development assistance annually for five years, with a similar amount envisioned for a subsequent five years – place no conditions on the Government of Pakistan.  The only requirements are accountability measures placed on the United States executive branch to ensure that the aid directly benefits the Pakistani people.

This Act fully recognizes and respects the independence of Pakistan as a sovereign nation.  The purpose of this Act is to forge a closer collaborative relationship between Pakistan and the United States, not to dictate the national policy or impinge on the sovereignty of Pakistan in any way.  Any interpretation of this Act which suggests that the United States does not fully recognize and respect the sovereignty of Pakistan would be directly contrary to Congressional intent.

The certifications in the Act regarding certain limited forms of security assistance are consistent with previous Congressional legislation regarding security assistance to Pakistan and other nations.  In all cases, they align with the aims of, and serve to reinforce the publicly-articulated positions of, the democratically-elected Government of Pakistan, and Pakistani military leaders, to combat extremists and militants.

Sections 1-4: Strengthening a Relationship Founded on Mutual Respect

Sections 1-4 establish the framework and context for the legislative provisions that follow.  The Findings and the Statement of Principles demonstrate an unequivocal appreciation for the friendship of the Pakistani people, and for the sacrifices made by the Pakistani security forces and people in fighting extremism. The Findings in Section 3 include:

Section 3(1): “Congress finds the following: The people of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the United States share a long history of friendship and comity, and the interests of both nations are well-served by strengthening and deepening this friendship.”

Section 3(4): “Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the United States and has been a valuable partner in the battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban, but much more remains to be accomplished by both nations.  The struggle against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups has led to the deaths of several thousand Pakistani civilians and members of the security forces of Pakistan over the past seven years.”

The Statement of Principles in Section 4 include:

Section 4(1): “Pakistan is a critical friend and ally to the United States, both in times of strife and in times of peace, and the two countries share many common goals, including combating terrorism and violent radicalism, solidifying democracy and rule of law in Pakistan, and promoting the social and economic development of Pakistan.”

Section 4(4): “The United States supports Pakistan’s struggle against extremist elements and recognizes the profound sacrifice made by Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, including the loss of more than 1,900 soldiers and police since 2001 in combat with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist and terrorist groups.”

Title I:  Democratic, Economic and Development Assistance for Pakistan

This Title contains the core intention of this legislation: To make a long-term commitment to the people of Pakistan by tripling non-military assistance, free of any conditions on the Pakistani government.  The purposes set forth for the $7.5 billion that is authorized here are all intended to reflect the expressed priorities of the Pakistani people.  Specifically, Section 101(a) provides that:

“The President is authorized to provide assistance to Pakistan to support the consolidation of democratic institutions; to support the expansion of rule of law, build the capacity of government institutions, and promote respect for internationally-recognized human rights; to promote economic freedoms and sustainable economic development; to support investment in people, including those displaced in on-going counterinsurgency operations; and to strengthen public diplomacy.”

The funds authorized under Title I are intended to be used to work with and benefit Pakistani organizations.  Specifically, Section 101(c)(3) provides that:

“The President is encouraged, as appropriate, to utilize Pakistani firms and community and local nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan, including through host country contracts, and to work with local leaders to provide assistance under this section.”

Section 102 (a) makes clear that there are no conditions placed on the Pakistani government for delivery of the $7.5 billion in assistance.  The only accounting requirements are of the U.S. executive branch.

Section 102(d) makes clear that a long term commitment to increased civilian assistance for the people of Pakistan is envisioned by stating that it is the desire of Congress that the amounts authorized for fiscal years 2010-2014 shall continue from fiscal years 2015-2019.

Section 103(b) authorizes establishment of field offices for Inspectors General to audit and oversee expenditure of this assistance.  It is the intent of Congress that such offices would be established in consultation with appropriate Pakistani authorities for the purpose of ensuring optimal management of resources.

Title II: Security Assistance for Pakistan

The intention of this section is to strengthen cooperative efforts to confront extremism.  The purposes of security assistance are intended to be completely cooperative, and reflect the intention that such assistance be used to support Pakistan in achieving its stated objectives in winning the ongoing counterinsurgency, defeating terrorist organizations that threaten Pakistan, and strengthening democratic institutions.  Specifically, Section 201(1) “Purposes of Assistance” states that:

“The purposes of assistance under this title are –

(1)   to support Pakistan’s paramount national security need to fight and win the ongoing counterinsurgency within its borders in accordance with its national security interests;

(2)   to work with the Government of Pakistan to improve Pakistan’s border security and control and help prevent any Pakistani territory from being used as a base or conduit for terrorist attacks in Pakistan, or elsewhere;

(3)    to work in close cooperation with the Government of Pakistan to coordinate action against extremist and terrorist targets; and

(4)   to help strengthen the institutions of democratic governance….  ”

The provisions applied to certain limited portions of U.S. security assistance in Section 203 are intended to be fully in line with the existing policy of the Government of Pakistan.  Specifically, Section 203(c)(1) reflects our understanding that cooperative efforts currently being undertaken by the Governments of Pakistan and the United States to combat proliferation will continue.

Section 203(c)(2) reflects the intent that U.S. security assistance is used in furtherance of the purposes set forth in Section 201 above, e.g., ensuring Pakistan’s security, winning the counterinsurgency within Pakistan, preventing territory from being used for terrorist attacks in Pakistan and elsewhere, and coordinating action against extremist and terrorist targets.  This section requires a certification by the U.S.  executive branch to Congress regarding the efforts and progress made in achieving these purposes, and includes a series of factors to be considered collectively by the Secretary of State in making this assessment.

Section 203(c)(3) includes a provision intended to express support for democratic institutions in Pakistan.

Section 203(e) contains a waiver making clear that this certification could be waived if the determination is made by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security that this was necessary to continue such assistance.

Title III. Strategy, Accountability, Monitoring, and Other Provisions.

The intention of this section is to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in the way authorized assistance is spent.  This Title requires the U.S. executive branch to provide various reports to Congress designed to demonstrate that funds are being used for the purposes set forth in Title I and Title II; there are no requirements on the Government of Pakistan.

Section 301 “Strategy Reports” requires three reports from the U.S.  executive branch that detail a plan for how U.S. assistance to Pakistan will be spent and evaluated and a regional security plan for how the United States can best work with its partners for “effective counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts.”

Section 302 “Monitoring Reports” reflects the need for ongoing consultation between the U.S executive branch and Congress on monitoring U.S. assistance to Pakistan, including a “Semi-Annual Monitoring Report” where:

“The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes the assistance provided under this Act during the preceding 180-day period.”

The many requirements of this report are intended as a way for Congress to assess how effectively U.S. funds are being spent, shortfalls in U.S. resources that hinder the use of such funds, and steps the Government of Pakistan has taken to advance our mutual interests in countering extremism and nuclear proliferation and strengthening democratic institutions.

There is no intent to, and nothing in this Act in any way suggests that there should be, any U.S. role in micromanaging internal Pakistani affairs, including the promotion of Pakistani military officers or the internal operations of the Pakistani military.

The reports envisioned in this Section are not binding on Pakistan, and require only the provision of information by the executive branch to the U.S. Congress, in furtherance of the Act’s stated purpose of strengthening civilian institutions and the democratically-elected Government of Pakistan.

Although Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi endorsed the bill in an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, Kerry just announced a meeting and subsequent press conference with Qureshi about the bill. The two will talk to the press at the Capitol at 1 p.m.

That appears not to be enough. Just now, the committee blasted out a sheet of talking points intended to address the fears of the Pakistani military, and anyone else who happens to fret over the bill. For instance:

MYTH: The bill places onerous conditions on U.S. military aid to Pakistan that interfere in Pakistan’s internal affairs and imply that Pakistan supports terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

FACT: The conditions on military aid reinforce the stated policy of the Government of Pakistan, major Pakistani opposition parties, and the Pakistani military and are the basis of bilateral cooperation between the United States and Pakistan.

Some of these myths are kind of baroque, like the one refuting the imaginary provision in the bill to place U.S. troops in Pakistan. Ah well.

Here’s the full fact-sheet:

The United States wants to transform its relationship with Pakistan into a deeper, broader, long-term strategic engagement with the people of Pakistan. The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act (S.1707), also known as the Kerry-Lugar bill, was designed to help turn the page in our bilateral relationship by moving beyond a military relationship to one where the United States engages directly with the people of Pakistan as a true ally and friend.

The heart of this bill gives the people of Pakistan $7.5 billion (Rs. 62,500 crore) over five years (2010-2014) in nonmilitary aid. This bill should be seen for what it is — a true sign of U.S. friendship to the people of Pakistan. The language in the bill was carefully negotiated between Senators Kerry and Lugar and Representative Berman with the concurrence of the U.S. State and Defense Departments. The bill was passed unanimously on a bipartisan basis by the U.S. Congress in September 2009.

Here is what the bill really does.

MYTH: The $7.5 billion (Rs. 62, 500 crores) authorized by the bill comes with strings attached for the people of Pakistan.

FACT: There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to these funds.

The $7.5 billion (Rs. 62,500 crore) authorized is all for non-military aid. These funds are unconditioned— they are a pledge of U.S. friendship to the Pakistani people. There are strict measures of financial accountability on these funds that Congress is imposing on the U.S. executive branch—not the Pakistani government, to make sure the money is being spent properly and for the purposes intended. Such accountability measures have been welcomed by Pakistani commentators to ensure that funds meant for schools, roads and clinics actually reach the Pakistani people and are not wasted.

MYTH: The bill impinges on Pakistan’s sovereignty.

FACT: Nothing in the bill threatens Pakistani sovereignty. Period.

This bill is an extended hand of friendship, from the people of America to the people of Pakistan. It will fund schools, roads, energy infrastructure, and medical clinics. Even when Americans are going through a deep recession and tough economic times, the United States is pledging $7.5 billion (Rs. 62,500 crore) as a long-term commitment to Pakistan. Those seeking to undermine this partnership, to advance their own narrow partisan or institutional agendas, are doing a serious disservice to the people of the United States and of Pakistan.

MYTH: The bill places onerous conditions on U.S. military aid to Pakistan that interfere in Pakistan’s internal affairs and imply that Pakistan supports terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

FACT: The conditions on military aid reinforce the stated policy of the Government of Pakistan, major Pakistani opposition parties, and the Pakistani military and are the basis of bilateral cooperation between the United States and Pakistan.

This bill does not discuss the levels of U.S. military aid to Pakistan, which will be determined year by year depending on events on the ground. The purpose of this bill is to focus on nonmilitary assistance to the people of Pakistan. To the extent that the bill authorizes military aid, the conditions require the President of the United States to certify to the U.S. Congress that:

* Pakistan “is continuing to cooperate with the United States” on nuclear nonproliferation;
* Pakistan “is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups,” including Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their affiliates; and
* The Pakistani military is not “subverting the political or judicial processes” of the nation.

Each of these conditions is the stated policy of the Pakistani government, the major Pakistani opposition parties, and the Pakistani military. The conditions ask nothing beyond what Pakistan’s own leaders have already promised. Pakistan and the United States share common goals to bolster security and democracy in the region and have been working together as allies towards these goals. The language in the bill reflects this understanding and commitment by the people of Pakistan in furthering regional stability and democracy.

MYTH: The bill requires U.S. oversight on promotions and other internal operations of the Pakistani military.

FACT: There is absolutely no such requirement or desire.

This disinformation stems from an item to be included in one of the monitoring reports: it requires the Secretary of State to describe the extent to which civilian authorities exercise control over the Pakistani military. It does not require such control, nor does it place any restriction whatsoever on Pakistan. This benchmark, like all benchmarks in the monitoring reports, is informational. It presents a data-point on which U.S. policy-makers can base decisions.

MYTH: The bill expands the Predator program of drone attacks on targets within Pakistan.

FACT: There is absolutely nothing in the bill related to drones.

This bill is about delivering economic development, education, health care, and other services to the people of Pakistan. There is nothing in this bill on the drone program.

MYTH: The bill funds activities within Pakistan by private U.S. security firms, such as Dyncorp and Blackwater/Xe.

FACT: The bill does not include any language on private U.S. security firms.

The issue of how private security firms operate in Pakistan has nothing to do with this bill. The laws governing such firms – which are employed by many U.S. embassies and consulates throughout the world – are not affected by this bill in any way.

MYTH: The bill aims for an expanded U.S. military footprint in Pakistan.

FACT: The bill does not provide a single dollar for U.S. military operations.

All of the money authorized in this bill is for non-military, civilian purposes.

MYTH: The United States is expanding its physical footprint in Pakistan, using the bill as a justification for why the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad needs more space and security.

FACT: As the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad works diligently over the next five years to properly distribute the $7.5 billion (Rs. 62,500 crore) to the people of Pakistan, it will need to take into account its own personnel and security needs to make sure it has the right staff with the right expertise on hand. This is common sense.

As part of this bill, we are asking the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to take an enormous amount of responsibility and oversight. The Embassy may need to add on additional staff to help implement billions of dollars aid. This is a logical step and should not be read as anything more than that. Such staffing decisions will follow the normal course of conduct, as governed by agreements between the Governments of Pakistan and the United States.

This Act represents a collaboration between both Democrats and Republicans, in both Senate and the House, to forge a new long-term relationship between the people of America and Pakistan. The fact that President Obama was able to announce this at the United Nations sends an important message to Pakistan and the world of our strengthened commitment to this relationship.

Lugar:

We should make clear to the people of Pakistan that our interests are focused on democracy, pluralism, stability, and the fight against terrorism. These are values supported by a large majority of the Pakistani people. If Pakistan is to break its debilitating cycle of instability, it will need to achieve progress on fighting corruption, delivering government services, and promoting broad based economic growth. The international community and the United States should support reforms that contribute to the strengthening of Pakistani civilian institutions.

Lynne Weil, a spokeswoman for Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who wrote the House counterpart in his foreign-affairs committee, says, “The chairman hopes to introduce the [counterpart] legislation soon,” but couldn’t give an exact date for when the House bill drops.

A senior aide today told the Associated Press that McConnell plans to announce his opposition to her confirmation on Monday.

McConnell’s aide reportedly said that Sotomayor’s “statements show an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice, and that he’s worried she’d let her sympathies and prejudices interfere with her decisions as a justice.”

Update: McConnell has sent out a statement including excerpts of his remarks he’ll deliver about Sotomayor on Monday. Here’s one:

Judge Sotomayor’s record of written statements suggest an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice, and therefore, in my view, an insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath. This is particularly important when considering someone for the Supreme Court since, if she were confirmed, there would be no higher court to deter or prevent her from injecting into the law the various disconcerting principles that recur throughout her public statements. For that reason, I will oppose her nomination.

The rest of his remarks are here.

Today, Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) came out with this statement:

I have listened to the testimony of Judge Sonia Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee, carefully reviewed her public service record, and reviewed recommendations from Indiana constituents and colleagues here in the Senate. Judge Sotomayor is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and she has demonstrated a judicial temperament during her week-long nomination hearing. Judge Sotomayor has had a distinguished career of public service. She is well regarded in the legal community and by her peers. I will vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. [Emphasis added.]

Harold Koh at an April 28 Senate confirmation hearing (Zuma Press)

On Monday, nearly four months after President Obama nominated Harold Koh to become legal adviser to the State Department, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed cloture and moved his nomination to the floor. Confirming the dean of Yale Law School to a powerful but usually uncontroversial position had proven harder than either his supporters or his detractors could have expected.

“When you consider Dean Koh’s impressive resume,” said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation who signed a conservative coalition’s letter opposing Koh’s nomination, “this process should have been more of a coronation than a fight. It’s only become a fight because serious issues were raised on his views of transnational law.”

Image by: Matt Mahurin

Koh’s qualifications for the State Department job have never really been in dispute. A veteran of both the Reagan and the Clinton presidencies, a summa cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School who counts Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Alan Dershowitz among his friends, Koh’s nomination was welcomed by several influential Republican lawyers. Ken Starr, the former Clinton foe who is now Dean of Pepperdine University Law School, remembered Koh as a “vigorous adversary” but commended him to the U.S. Senate as a “truly great man of irreproachable integrity.” Ted Olsen echoed Starr, calling Koh a “brilliant scholar and a man of great integrity.” John Bellinger, who served as George W. Bush’s final legal adviser to the State Department, welcomed Koh as a “well qualified” candidate who “should be confirmed.”

After all of that came months of attacks, wrangling, and stale-mating over Koh’s thinking on “transnational” law and belief that American jurisprudence should respect for “the opinions of mankind,” as he put it in 2002. This reached a certain level of farce last week, when Koh’s brother Howard was confirmed, controversy-free, to a post in the Department of Health and Human Services. And the saga may or may not end with Koh’s confirmation. The majority leader is “optimistic we will have the 60 votes needed,” according to spokesperson Regan Lachappelle. But on Monday afternoon, Reid saw that Republicans “would not agree to an up or down vote” and that Democrats had “no choice but to file cloture.” All sides expect a contentious, tip-and-tuck vote, and Democrats are prepared for a debate that could last several days if outspoken opponents of the nomination such as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) decide to drag out the process.

Whatever the result of the vote, conservatives are ready to declare some small victories. Koh, long seen as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court, has been widely portrayed as a judicial radical and supporter of international law who — in the words of Fox News host Glenn Beck — “may shred the Constitution in favor of international law.” In the process, a small group of conservative activists have moved ahead the idea that American sovereignty is under attack from international treaties. Some argued that the delays revealed a lack of confidence from congressional Democrats that they could win a pitched, public debate over “transnationalism,” although the filing of cloture on Monday suggested that Democrats are ready to take some heat over an issue that remains fairly obscure.

The Koh nomination became a cause for some conservative activists despite — or perhaps because of — early support from Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At the April 28 hearing on the nomination, Lugar read apologetically from a Time magazine article on right-wing attacks from the likes of Glenn Beck and John Bolton. “Without going into the problems of the Republican Party any further,” said Lugar, to audible laughter, “there is some substance to this type of atmosphere that has been created, not only in the blogosphere but in Time Magazine and elsewhere.” Lugar explained that the primacy of the Constitution was “a source of concern for many Americans.”

Koh argued that his much-cited work on “transnational” law should not present much cause for concern. “The basic theme of all of my writing,” he said before the committee, “is that a partnership between the president and Congress protects our foreign policy and supports our Constitution, and that a partnership with our allies — done well, correctly, within the law, protects our sovereignty and makes us safer.”

It was immediately clear that Koh would not get the same deference from the rest of the committee’s Republican members. Conservative activists and lawyers who were familiar with the long campaign against Koh — one recalled speaking at as many as a dozen meetings on the risks his nomination presented — were active in providing skeptical Republicans with quotes from Koh’s speeches and troublesome arguments such as his 2004 statement that the United States had joined an “axis of disobedience” in flouting international law. At the April 28 hearing, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) informed Koh that he had been “watching the body language” and saw the dean “reading the answer” about international law. “You know, you’re the dean of Yale Law School and probably one of the most knowledgeable people to ever come before this group as it relates to law. But it did appear to me that you were reading that answer and I’m just wondering if you might speak to that, because typically, when people do that they’re sort of tight roping down an issue that they’re concerned there may be some baggage on. Maybe I saw wrong.”

In the end, Lugar was the only Republican member of the committee to vote for Koh. On Monday, his spokesman Andy Fisher confirmed that Lugar would vote for Koh, and that “nothing had changed” since the hearing. Spokesmen for the other Republicans on the committee did not comment to TWI. But conservative activists outside of the Senate, who still see a possibility of defeating Koh (”he could wash his hands of the whole thing and go back to Yale,” said one activist), said that the new attention on “transnational” law and the possibility of slowing down Senate business made the battle worthwhile. (One activist, who was interviewed by TWI before Democrats moved for cloture, speculated that Republicans could “get something,” such as a delay in the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, if they made some demands of Democrats.)

“Since the administration is trying to do a serious number of bad things,” explained Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform who signed a letter opposing Koh’s nomination, “everything that slows it down stops another bad thing it wants to do. Now, there is an argument against just saying ‘no’ or just stalling on everything. That is why, ideally, you can have a fight about an issue — Harold Koh’s thinking on international law is a serious issue that affects gun rights, for example — and you can slow the bad stuff down. That’s the best of both worlds.”

While conservatives argued that Koh’s views could become a flash point for more controversy — something Democrats seemed to acknowledge by holding off for so long on a debate and a vote — there is no evidence that a battle in the Senate would boost Republicans. In 2005 and 2006 the party invested plenty of political capital in the nomination of John Bolton for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and they were bolstered by the kind of outside pressure groups that never arose to promote Koh. Still, polling revealed that Bolton’s firey rhetoric and denunciations of international law did not win over voters.

“The odds are against it becoming a defining feature of the national debate,” said Scott Rasmussen, an independent pollster who has conducted surveys about Americans’ views of international law and the United Nations. “But if you were a Senator in a competitive race, would you want a 30-second commercial saying you voted for a nominee who wants Americans to live under international law?”

Even if Koh is confirmed this week, one activist who had met with Republicans about the nomination was confident that the State Department’s work had “not moved as fast as it could have” in strategizing for the ratification of new treaties as a result of the slowed-down process. John Bellinger, the former Legal Advisor who still supports Koh’s nomination, confirmed that analysis. “It will be difficult,” he said, “for the career lawyers [in the State Department] to take new or potentially controversial positions on international law or domestic litigation issues without guidance from a new political appointee.”