11 Oct Armenian Genocide Resolution: The Pitfalls of Congressional Diplomacy
This episode brings into pretty clear relief the potential downside of congressional foreign policymaking (front-page story today in the NY Times; you can find the resolution here). I’m surprised that the Bush Administration hasn’t made some sort of constitutional argument against the measure. It might be a tough one to make, but that’s hardly stopped this Administration from making tough arguments in other security-related contexts. Perhaps under the Send and Receive Clause? After all, the resulting controversy is pretty good evidence that foreign policy is better run out of the White House. The resolution, from the sounds of it, might do some serious harm to our strategic interests in Iraq and with respect to the Kurds (note that Turkey cut off military relations with France when the French parliament passed a similar measure last year).
Or is this kind of resolution too well entrenched as a matter of constitutional practice to be constitutionally delegitimized? The bigger surprise here is not so much Turkey’s sensitivity on the subject but rather it’s lack of sophistication on the forum. It’s not as if the House of Representatives actually serves as the voice of the People in any real sense on issues such as this one. The resolution itself does not purport to set US policy on the question; it merely “calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity” concerning the genocide. So perhaps this shouldn’t be any more threatening to Turkish interests than the dozens of state and local measures on the subject. (Then again, maybe Turkey has something to worry about.)
No doubt this complicates the President’s task, but legislative foreign policy in the form of this kind of non-binding resolution or even in a binding resolution cutting off funds for the war seems inevitable from a coequal branch. I am not so taken with Presidential wisdom. Many have been willing to sweep this under the rug over the years. It’s out again.
Best,
ben
Peter:
While I technically agree with you here, I do beleive that one plausible comeback to your argument is that Congress only passes such resolutions because it plays such a marginal role in foreign policy in the first place and hence does not fully internalize the political costs of its decisions. In other words, if Congress really played a more active role in foreign policy and voters were aware of this, one might argue that members of Congress might be less willing to pass such high-risk symbolic resolutions. Put differently, members might feel more comfortable passing such resolutions because they can easily push off any negative political repurcussions unto some future president.
–Jide
Jide, I agree that the explanation for congressional missteps such as this is that the costs aren’t internalized to representatives, but that may be true even if they aren’t marginal (voting in favor of this resolution might make sense from the perspective of interest-group politics even if public attention were more focused on it). The question is: could one construct mechanisms to make them (or Congress as an institution) pay for their (its) mistakes?
From a pragmatic standpoint, I do not understand why this resolution is proposed at this time. The Turks dispute the facts of the event (which is their right). The government which carried out the alleged crime was destroyed, it’s leaders killed. lists 12 genocides: The Transatlantic Slave trade — 15th-19th Century Genocide of the Native Americans — Beginning in 1830 The Herero Genocide — 1904-1907 The Armenian Genocide — 1915-1918 The Ukrainian Genocide/The Great — 1932-1933 Rape of Nanking — Dec. 1937-Jan. 1938 The Holocaust — 1938-1945 Mao Tse-tung’s Cultural Revolution — 1966-1976 The Killing Fields: The Cambodian Genocide — 1975-1979 Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina — 1992-1995 The Rwandan Genocide — 1994 The Genocide in Darfur — 2003-Present This list is certainly not complete; for one thing, it excludes The Great Hunger (An Gorta Mór in Irish) — 1846-1849. I am sure there are other omissions. Unfortunately genocide in its traditional sense is not as rare as we’d like to believe. This is a sensitive time now in the Middle East, what is to be gained by bringing up this 90+ year old crime? Its victims and victimizers are long dead. Who benefits from this? Do they benefit enough… Read more »
Should have said: http://www.teachgenocide.com/genocides/index.htm lists 12 genocides:
sean s.