From Photo Gallery: Our Unpopular Congres |
Both, Administration and Congress
are blaming each other for not being cooperative. Administration is usually
pointing the finger at Congress’s inefficiency and partisanship. At the same
time, it is to certain extent annoyed, when congressional leaders become more
actively involved in foreign policy, in the field where the leadership of White
House feels it has an exclusive mandate. Some of the Congressmen and
Congresswomen have been widely criticized for making frequent or uncoordinated
visits overseas and meeting with foreign leaders. One of such cases was Nancy Pelosi’s meeting with
President Assad in 2007, when she allegedly delivered the message from Israeli
Prime Minister. Newt Gingrich makes a good point, that “it’s very important not
to have two foreign policies,” that Congressional leaders and Administration
speak the same language. If there is no conflict between their statements
and/or if congressional leaders speak only of themselves and not on behalf of
the U.S. government, they should be free to travel wherever they want and meet
whoever they find relevant. On the other hand, Congressional leaders blame
Administration for not involving Congress in foreign policy matters. Many
believe that Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations
paid much more attention to Congressional participation than the George W. Bush
or Barack Obama administrations do. Ex-Senator Richard Lugar wrote in his
recent commentary that even though Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are responsive to their
former colleagues, “the
Obama Administration as a whole has frequently resisted Congressional
involvement in major foreign-policy decisions and issues. On several key
questions, in fact, the Administration has aggressively challenged Congress's
foreign-policy powers.” Mr.
Lugar was referring to the 2011 Libya Operation and Obama’s less known decision
to revise the practice of Congressional approval of U.S. arms sales.
Given this
reality it is interesting to look at who were and are foreign policy and
national security issue leaders in Congress today. Competitive environment of
the Cold War has clearly encouraged legislators’ foreign policy initiatives.
Joe Lieberman, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham, nicknamed “the three amigos” by
General Petraeus, are often described as legends, who were present and
participated in every foreign policy discussion. Many believe that it was their
bipartisanship that made their trio so influential and attractive. Mr. McCain
and Mr. Graham represented conservative camp, while Mr. Lieberman was an
independent democrat-turned senator. Other significant foreign policy voices
were and are Sam Nunn (D-GA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), authors of Nunn-Lugar
Act of 1992, Joe Biden (D-DE), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations from 2001 to 2009 who advocated deeper relationship with Russia,
NATO’s eastern expansion, tougher China policy, and etc., John Kerry (D-MA),
Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2004, who is believed to be one of the
candidates to head Pentagon in Obama’s second administration, Howard “Buck”
McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and an advocate
for strategic, tactical, and scientific values of UAVs, John Kyl (R-AZ), member
of the subcommittee on
Technology, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and
a Republican Whip, and Hillary
Rodham Clinton (D-NY), whose foreign policy achievements during her tenure in
Senate is questioned by some, but still
she was clearly more vocal and visible on foreign policy scene than her other
peers.
Most of the Democrats mentioned
above, except for John Kerry, have either retired or took up the public office
in Obama administration. Now John Kerry is also being considered on the
position of Pentagon Chief. Hence, almost all old generation foreign policy
congressional leaders left in Congress are Republicans and so are the so called
“emerging leaders.” These are New Hampshire’s Republican Kelly Ayotte, who was
one of the candidates considered as Mitt Romney’s running mate. Many think she
will be replacing outgoing Mr. Lieberman in “the trio”, although she won’t be
able to add the ‘bipartisanship component’ and the unique foreign policy
experience to the team. She has already acted in tandem with Mr. McCaian and
Mr. Graham criticizing Administration’s response on Benghazi. The new trio’s
first joint attempt to hold Ms. Rice or the Administration accountable was
limited and not very impressive. Other, even younger, emerging leaders seem to
be Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), member of House Committee on Energy and Commerce and
a Deputy Republican Whip. He’s a proponent of nuclear energy and has declared
U.S.’s energy independence as his number one priority. And Tom Cotton (R-AR), a
freshman in Congress, seen as experienced in Afghan politics because of his
army background.
So, the trend at first glance
seems to be that conservatives lead the foreign policy agenda in Congress and
there are very few new faces. There might be more influential personalities
among staffers, but public information about them is very limited. Also, it is
widely acknowledged that because of this lack of experienced issue leaders,
especially after closure of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
and Congress’s Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the
lobbyists and issue-advocates have become more influential.
Questions to think about –
a. Does this mean that Congressional
oversight on Administration’s foreign policy is even weaker today than before?
What implication can that have for U.S.’s foreign policy and on the Administration?
b. What is the desirable level of
congressional leaders’ involvement in foreign policy? Or is this the area which
the White House can handle the best?
c. Would you add anyone to the list
of the “new generation foreign policy” leaders? Or do you think anyone
mentioned above is irrelevant?
No comments:
Post a Comment