Some people can be wrong in principle, while others find themselves wrong in practice. It takes exceptional conditions to mange to be wrong in both. It is the rough equivalent of managing to commit a fielding and throwing error on the same play. Like a shortstop who bobbles a routine grounder and then overthrows first base, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has tallied two errors in one short week. The circumstances of the rare mistakes by the usually sure-handed politician are her trip to the Middle Eats this week.
The Bobble: As a matter of principle and tradition, the country should speak with one voice to the world, and that is the voice of the chief executive. Unless specifically designated as a representative by the President, members of Congress should visit foreign countries only in a fact finding capacity, not in a negotiating role.
This is does not exclude the legislative branch from a role in foreign policy. Congress, particularly the Senate, (Pelosi represents the House) has Constitutional responsibility in foreign policy. While the President manages foreign policy, greets foreign heads of states, and appoints ambassadors, he does so with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President can negotiate a treaty, but it requires two-thirds consent from the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Speaker Pelosi, however, appears less constrained by this tradition. Against the specific wishes of the President George Bush, Pelosi visited Syria. Pelosi argues that it was a fact-finding mission and she was not attempting to create an alternative foreign policy. However, the mere visit constituted a breach with current policy. The Administration had been trying the isolate the thug-o-cractic government of Bashar al-Assad in response to its assignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister and its aid to insurgents in Iraq. Thugs like al-Assad have no natural legitimacy. They rule by fear and are not by consent of the governed. They crave the legitimacy implied by the kind foreign recognition so blithely conferred by Pelosis visit. Pelosi granted that implied legitimacy in contravention of current US foreign policy. Her mere visit implied a separate Democratic foreign policy.
This interpretation was confirmed by Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), House Foreign Relations Committee who accompanied Pelosi on her trip. He explicitly claimed, “We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.” That was certainly the way the trip was viewed a home and abroad. The San Francisco Chronicle happily claimed that “Pelosi seen moving around Bush in Middle East.” The Left-wing British paper The Guardian headlined “Pelosi challenges Bush policy by visiting Syria.” Whatever Pelosi protestations and whether by design or mistake Pelosi violated the tradition of criticizing at home, but not conducting an independent foreign policy abroad.
The Over Throw: On the the practical side, Pelosi compounded the original error by making several mistakes that demonstrated her inexperience. She was amateurishly self important when she pronounced, “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” The expectations were at the least extremely premature.
Perhaps that small melodrama could have been forgiven, if Pelosi had not managed to misrepresent the Israeli position to the Syrians. Pelosi told the press in Damascus that “[Our] meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks.” However, Pelosi had to be quickly corrected by the Israelis. The Israelis were willing to talk to Syria only on the absolute condition that Syria ceases its support of Hamas and other Islamic Jihad organizations.
Pelosi is an excellent domestic politician. She should not have allowed her anxiousness to undermine President Bush to interfere with American foreign policy and the tradition of the country speaking with one voice.
As a matter of principle and tradition, the country should speak with one voice to the world, and that is the voice of the chief executive. Unless specifically designated as a representative by the President, members of Congress should visit foreign countries only in a fact finding capacity, not in a negotiating role.
This has never been a tradition. In 1997, Newt Gingrich traveled to China and warned their government that the U.S. would not stand for any attack on Taiwan. In 1998, Dennis Hastert went to Colombia and advised Colombian officials that they could bypass the Clinton Administration and work directly with the U.S. Congress to thwart human rights requirements for receiving American aid. In fact, earlier this year, three GOP congressmen visited Syria, and at least one of them met with President Assad.
The Israelis were willing to talk to Syria only on the absolute condition that Syria ceases its support of Hamas and other Islamic Jihad organizations.
According to Pelosi and others on the trip, these issues were raised in private conversation.