Wednesday, 15 June 2011
President Barack Obama giving the State of the Union address to Congress on Capitol Hill. (File Photo)
Who defines US national interests and puts strategies in place to safeguard those interests and achieve national goals? How about how the US relates to other countries—who get help and who does not—the president or Congress?
If you picked either one, you were half right. Historically, presidents have been the face of US foreign policy by dent of public policy statements defining their administrations and their responses to world events but crafting foreign policy is by no means a one-man show.
The US Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the president and Congress, creating a complex, overlapping and at times confounding process by which America decides how it will relate to the world beyond its borders.
If you picked either one, you were half right. Historically, presidents have been the face of US foreign policy by dent of public policy statements defining their administrations and their responses to world events but crafting foreign policy is by no means a one-man show.
The US Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the president and Congress, creating a complex, overlapping and at times confounding process by which America decides how it will relate to the world beyond its borders.
Other players not in the script also have a hand in foreign policy—lobbyists, sometimes countries, and the Political Action Committees that try to influence members of Congress and the president alike with campaign contributions and blocs of votes.
The State Department lists the official goal of US foreign policy simply as “creating a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.” Getting there is not so simple.
Shared policy making by the Executive Branch, the president and the Legislative Branch, Congress, is designed to provide checks and balances, which it does, though sometimes only after contentious dustups between the two.
Each has six basic ways to make foreign policy. The president can issue policy statements, implement policy, respond to international events, propose legislation, negotiate international accords or take independent action.
Congress can set foreign policy through legislative pressure or directives, legislative restrictions and denial of funding, informal advice to the president and congressional oversight.
Here is one example how it works: If the president takes independent action, say committing US military might in Libya, there is not much Congress can do in the short run except grouse, pass non-binding resolutions or take the president’s action to the court of public opinion, all of which it has done.
Similarly, when President Barack Obama suggested using somewhat modified 1967 borders as a starting point for getting stalled talks between the Palestinians and Israelis back on track, there was quite a bit of froth in Congress with some members saying Mr. Obama had turned his back on Israel and thrown an ally under the bus. Congress otherwise was powerless to change the president’s position.
Had the president asked for special funding to carry out these policies, however, Congress could, with enough votes, say no, thus altering policy.
There are numerous examples where an activist Congress flexes its muscle and forced changes in policy set by a president. In 1983, the Islamic Jihad bombed US barracks in Lebanon, killing more than 200 Marines.
Then President Reagan asserted the United States had vital national interests in Lebanon and would extend marine participation in a multinational force there. Influential members of Congress objected and put forth an amendment to cut off funding.
The amendment failed but subsequent reports by a House subcommittee and Department of Defense commission in December of that year concluded American objectives could not be achieved by use of the marines. Mr. Reagan backed down and began removing American troops from Lebanon two months later.
After decades of being bullied by strong presidents on foreign policy, Congress reasserted itself in the 1970s after the Vietnam War, exerting influence on policy initiatives by presidents and initiating policies of its own.
In recent years, the ball has been back in the president’s court as Congress and the nation rallied around the president in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US by Al Qaeda. The pendulum may be swinging the other way now as Congress and the president tussle over American policy toward the Arab Spring uprisings.
Despite efforts to stay on the sidelines, pushing for sanctions and letting the Europeans take the lead, the Obama administration has been sucked into the fray by pressure to stop the bloody slaughter of civilians calling on despots to step down.
It did so in Egypt with relative ease but sending American warplanes to intervene in Libya to help in the ouster of Col. Muammar Gaddafi has been met with pushback from Congress.
The administration is under international pressure to live up to its pledge to support champions of democracy by intervening to stop the carnage in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain also. That and perceived national interests such as keeping Persian Gulf oil routes open and Al Qaeda terrorists at bay already have drawn more US operatives to the region.
Republicans and some Democrats in Congress object to further commitments of manpower and large-scale resources to conflicts abroad. As the nation enters a presidential campaign year, job creation and dealing with a trillion dollar debt will trump foreign adventures.
Squabbles over foreign policy will highlight the complexities that make US policy seem inconsistent and uneven.
(Nathaniel Sheppard Jr. is a well-known correspondent who worked for The Chicago Tribune and The New York Times. He can be reached at: natsheppard@gmail.com)
The State Department lists the official goal of US foreign policy simply as “creating a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.” Getting there is not so simple.
Shared policy making by the Executive Branch, the president and the Legislative Branch, Congress, is designed to provide checks and balances, which it does, though sometimes only after contentious dustups between the two.
Each has six basic ways to make foreign policy. The president can issue policy statements, implement policy, respond to international events, propose legislation, negotiate international accords or take independent action.
Congress can set foreign policy through legislative pressure or directives, legislative restrictions and denial of funding, informal advice to the president and congressional oversight.
Here is one example how it works: If the president takes independent action, say committing US military might in Libya, there is not much Congress can do in the short run except grouse, pass non-binding resolutions or take the president’s action to the court of public opinion, all of which it has done.
Similarly, when President Barack Obama suggested using somewhat modified 1967 borders as a starting point for getting stalled talks between the Palestinians and Israelis back on track, there was quite a bit of froth in Congress with some members saying Mr. Obama had turned his back on Israel and thrown an ally under the bus. Congress otherwise was powerless to change the president’s position.
Had the president asked for special funding to carry out these policies, however, Congress could, with enough votes, say no, thus altering policy.
There are numerous examples where an activist Congress flexes its muscle and forced changes in policy set by a president. In 1983, the Islamic Jihad bombed US barracks in Lebanon, killing more than 200 Marines.
Then President Reagan asserted the United States had vital national interests in Lebanon and would extend marine participation in a multinational force there. Influential members of Congress objected and put forth an amendment to cut off funding.
The amendment failed but subsequent reports by a House subcommittee and Department of Defense commission in December of that year concluded American objectives could not be achieved by use of the marines. Mr. Reagan backed down and began removing American troops from Lebanon two months later.
After decades of being bullied by strong presidents on foreign policy, Congress reasserted itself in the 1970s after the Vietnam War, exerting influence on policy initiatives by presidents and initiating policies of its own.
In recent years, the ball has been back in the president’s court as Congress and the nation rallied around the president in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US by Al Qaeda. The pendulum may be swinging the other way now as Congress and the president tussle over American policy toward the Arab Spring uprisings.
Despite efforts to stay on the sidelines, pushing for sanctions and letting the Europeans take the lead, the Obama administration has been sucked into the fray by pressure to stop the bloody slaughter of civilians calling on despots to step down.
It did so in Egypt with relative ease but sending American warplanes to intervene in Libya to help in the ouster of Col. Muammar Gaddafi has been met with pushback from Congress.
The administration is under international pressure to live up to its pledge to support champions of democracy by intervening to stop the carnage in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain also. That and perceived national interests such as keeping Persian Gulf oil routes open and Al Qaeda terrorists at bay already have drawn more US operatives to the region.
Republicans and some Democrats in Congress object to further commitments of manpower and large-scale resources to conflicts abroad. As the nation enters a presidential campaign year, job creation and dealing with a trillion dollar debt will trump foreign adventures.
Squabbles over foreign policy will highlight the complexities that make US policy seem inconsistent and uneven.
(Nathaniel Sheppard Jr. is a well-known correspondent who worked for The Chicago Tribune and The New York Times. He can be reached at: natsheppard@gmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment