Pelosi's trip undermines U.S. policy

By Roey Rahmil

The Bush administration and its allies often argue that opposing the war in Iraq undermines United States foreign policy in the Middle East, or that opposing the administration's actions in the "War on Terror" emboldens terrorists. This tactic is usually a transparent attempt to evade substantive criticism and stop discussion on a critical national issue. And after all the times we've heard this argument used in bad faith, it's natural for us to doubt its veracity. Like the boy who cried wolf, the White House has exhausted its credibility with this strategy.

Ironically, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has created a situation in which the administration's argument is valid.

When she visited Syria last week, Pelosi disregarded United States foreign policy toward Syria in a spectacularly high-profile way. The White House refuses to negotiate with the Syrian government, claiming that Syria sponsors terrorism and interferes with U.S. interests. But Pelosi met with key Syrian officials, including President Bashar Assad, despite the White House's specific request not to. She undercut the President's authority as the nation's chief diplomat and damaged the international negotiating ability of the United States government.

Whether the administration's policy is sound or not is largely irrelevant here (though, given the Iraq Study Group's recommendation to engage Syria in diplomatic exchange, the White House's stance seems vulnerable to criticism).

What does matter is the Constitution and historical practice that recognize the president as the key architect of United States foreign policy.

The president is authorized to negotiate treaties and receive foreign diplomats, as well as staff and direct the State Department. These powers reflect the fact that it's important for the country to negotiate and interact internationally as a single voice, for the U.S. cannot hold two conflicting stances toward one country: Either we have diplomatic relations, or we don't. And whether or not to establish such relations is historically the president's decision.

Granted, Congress has an important role in shaping foreign policy, as well. Only the Legislature can declare war and fund the president's proposals, and only the Senate can ratify treaties.

But it would be a mistake to identify Pelosi with Congress as a whole. If Congress passed a resolution urging relations with Syria, that would be one thing: Democracy would have spoken. But the speaker led a small delegation of members of Congress that could not be said to represent the nation or the national interest. In doing so, she highlighted -- to an international audience -- the rift between Congress and the White House.

Pelosi has rightfully asserted that a Republican delegation met with President Assad shortly before she did and that the White House did not criticize them. The delegation assured that they had White House authorization, but it's unclear whether or not that is true. If so, then their action is different than the speaker's trip. If not, then they are just as culpable in disregarding United States policy toward Syria.

But unlike Pelosi, they did not make their trip a media event -- in fact, their excursion only came to light when the speaker brought it up.

Pelosi's trip isn't the end of the world. She relayed some mixed messages between Israel and Syria, but those seem to have been cleared up. The White House might now be a little less inclined to cooperate with her Democratic Congress, but that is hardly new. And the United States might seem a little conflicted to international spectators, but it's doubtful that foreign diplomats will start negotiating with Congress instead of the Executive.

The point is, any damage that occurred, however slight, didn't need to happen, just like Pelosi's trip itself. Political showboating won out over respecting an equal branch of government, and, predictably, little, if anything, was accomplished. There are sound ways for Congress to stand up to the administration's foreign policies, but this was not one of them.

The administration should learn from this, too. By now, its overzealous defenses of its own policies fall on deaf ears. It has called so many opponents unpatriotic and vilified opponents of the war so much that it has lost all its trustworthiness on the subject. The White House has wasted so much time crying wolf that now, when it actually sees one, no one listens.

Roey Rahmil is a senior political science and philosophy double major.