lobby groups that represent foreign countries, like AIPAC, should be thrown out of the US asap
On Mar 9, 10:08 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Lobbyistsby Doug Bandow > 03.08.2010 > U.S. foreign policy matters, especially to other countries. Just ask the > citizens of nations invaded or bombed by Washington, or suffering under > American sanctions, or simply annoyed by our tendency to hector, pester and > insist regarding all manner of issues, big and small. > Today Washington is deeply involved in a war in Afghanistan and ongoing civil > strife in Iraq. The United States continues to threaten Iran with military > action. Washington has promiscuously issued security guarantees throughout > Asia and Europe. American bases and troops circle the globe; American ships > and aircraft dominate the oceans and atmosphere. The price for this presence > is high: at a time of budget crisis, the United States spends more, adjusted > for inflation, on the military than at any point since World War II and > accounts for nearly half the globe’s military spending. > So what issue is roiling Congress today? Whether the Ottoman Empire committed > genocide against its Armenian subjects during World War I. It is a bizarre > question. And it is being asked only because foreign policy has become yet > another battlefield for influential interest groups. Americans now are > routinely held hostage by ethnic groups determined to use the U.S. government > to aid their families, friends, and co-ethnics abroad. Policy toward Cuba, > Eastern Europe, Haiti, Israel, Turkey and more has been deformed by domestic > politics. > Consider the Armenian genocide resolution, approved by one-vote margin by the > House Foreign Affairs Committee. Why are American congressmen judging the > character of mass killings which occurred nearly a century ago halfway around > the world? > The nation accused of committing genocide no longer exists. Every government > official who plotted the murders and almost certainly every soldier or > civilian who committed a murder is dead. Whether or not the actions > technically constituted “genocide” does not affect the obvious brutality and > inhumanity of the killings. > And the pronouncement of Congress will not matter. American legislators can > neither make a genocide where none existed nor eliminate one that did occur. > No historian will care one whit how a majority of American lawmakers opine. > Indeed, if U.S. policy makers are entitled to judge the Ottoman Empire, why > stop there? Perhaps Congress should charge Great Britain with committing > genocide through the Irish potato famine. Even more bloody was London’s > partition of its Indian colony. > Certainly much should be said about the casualties caused when Attila the Hun > and his hordes ravaged Eurasia. Rome could be charged with genocide in the > destruction of Carthage; even the Nazis did not sow with salt the lands which > they conquered. And who can forget the death, destruction and rapine set off > by the French Revolution continuing on through the Napoleonic Wars? > Obviously, the resolution on genocide against Armenians has nothing to do > with genocide against Armenians. Instead, the measure has everything to do > with criticizing Turkey. Members of the 80,000 member Armenian-American > community are in the lead, aided by many Greek-Americans who have their own > reasons for disliking Ankara (the invasion and occupation of Cyprus, > mistreatment of the Orthodox Church in Turkey, threats of war against Greece > over border issues, and more). Turkish-Americans, backed by the Turkish > government, are on the other side. > There are plenty of genuine policy issues at stake with Turkey. Whether > American policy makers really should view it as a security bulwark for the > United States increasingly is in doubt. Turkish policy towards Cyprus and the > Kurds in particular raise important issues for Washington. None of these have > anything to do with Armenian genocide, however. Getting Congress to vote on > this “issue” won’t encourage sensible policy formation elsewhere. > Another ethnic immigrant group similarly holds U.S. policy towards Cuba > hostage. It is easy to understand the anger within Florida's large > Cuban-American community toward the prolonged Castro dictatorship. That > anger, however, offers no justification for the continuing trade embargo > against Cuba. > Sanctions made sense during the Cold War; at least one could imagine war > between the United States and Soviet Union, with Cuba as an advanced base for > Moscow. But the Cold War is over and the embargo has manifestly failed. Today > Fidel Castro & Co., apparently as secure in power as ever, is facing its > tenth American president. All Washington has managed to do is turn the petty > dictator of a small, impoverished island penal colony into a celebrated > symbol of international resistance to Yanqui imperialismwhile offering him an > excuse for his own manifest economic failures. > America’s large Eastern European ethnic diaspora long has played a role in > U.S. policy towards that region. Much of its work was laudable: reminding the > world of the brutality of Soviet rule in the “Captive Nations.” > However, once the Berlin Wall fell, the Warsaw Pact dissolved and the Soviet > Union disintegrated, there was no longer any need for NATO, or at least a > U.S.-dominated NATO. Yet Eastern Europeans applied their considerable > political clout towards speedily expanding the alliance eastward to nations > never thought to be important let alone critical for American security. > The result was to make conflict between Moscow and Washington more likely, > hardly a good result from America’s standpoint. While the United States has > no interest to justify war with nuclear-armed Russia over the status the > newly independent Eastern European states, their conviction that Washington > stands behind them encourages them to behave more provocatively. Nowhere was > that more evident than when NATO-aspirant Georgia fired the first shot in a > war with Moscow over disputed territories seeking independence. U.S. policy > makers should offer their thanks that Germany and other European states > blocked Tbilisi’s path to NATO membership. > Similarly foolish has been pressure on Washington to intervene openly in > Ukrainian politics. Ukrainian-Americans tended to back the so-called Orange > Revolution and 2004 election triumph of Viktor Yushchenko; their pressure > encouraged the U.S. government to do likewise. Admittedly, Yushchenko seemed > like the better choice from America’s standpoint. But his opponent, Viktor > Yanukovich, appeared committed to a pragmatic course, even if one tilted > slightly towards Moscow. And since America had prospered even when Ukraine > was part of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, such a tilt should have been > of little policy concern in Washington. > The result of U.S. policy has not been pretty. Yushchenko managed five years > of divisive, petty, and at times even crackpot, incompetence, and was turned > out of office in December after receiving less than six percent of the vote. > Yanukovich won the run-off and now Uncle Sam has nothing to show for his > efforts, other than ample egg on his red face. > Ethnic Americans also helped craft a Balkan policy which can only be > described as the Serbs always lose. Many ethnic Croatians supported Croatia’s > brutal ethnic cleansing of the minority Serb population in the Krajina. > Washington trained the Croat military and refused to call ethnic cleansing by > its name when hundreds of thousands of Serbs were the victims. > Similarly, the Albanian-American lobby actively pushed for U.S. intervention > in what amounted to a civil war in Kosovo. That territory’s status barely > concerned Europe and was irrelevant to America. True, the ruling Serbs often > acted as thugsjust like other governments in similar circumstances, including > most recently NATO member Turkey in Kurdistan. Once America and its allies > defenestrated the Serb authorities, the newly ascendant ethnic Albanians > conducted their own campaign of ethnic cleansing against Serbs, gypsies and > others. Now Washington and Brussels have a potentially permanent dependent, > economically poor and politically unstable nation on their hands, one denied > recognition by most countries and UN membership by a Russian Security Council > veto. > Even Haiti has suffered from the tyranny of interest group politics. The > target of multiple military interventions by the United States, this island > nation has suffered through brutal authoritarianism and violent instability, > while remaining mired in poverty. Although there was no reason to expect a > better result from yet another American invasion, in 1994 the Clinton > administration forcibly restored to power Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a violent > demagogue. A number of influential African-Americans, including members of > the Congressional Black Caucus, pushed the president to act. A decade later > the Bush administration sent in troops to force the very same Aristide into > exile. Even before the recent earthquake, Haiti remained perhaps the most > tragic spot in the Western Hemisphere. > Then there is Israel. There’s much to say for the democratic state which, > despite its flaws, takes human rights more seriously than does its > authoritarian neighbors. Nevertheless, as a regional military superpower, > Israel doesn’t need American support. And Israel’s continued military rule > over millions of Palestinians creates anger against not just Israel but also > Israel’s most steadfast and important foreign patron, the United States. > There would always be good reasons for both nations to cooperate on issues of > mutual interest. However, under normal circumstances Washington would not > generously subsidize and routinely endorse a nation which is, in practice > today, a security negative. But circumstances are not normal, given the > domestic backing of Israel by many Jews and (particularly evangelical) > Christians. Their rationales are differentmany of the latter believe that > Jews must be gathered together in Israel and killed in conflict before Jesus > Christ can returnbut their policy prescriptions are similar. The result is > good for Israel, but not the United States. > There’s nothing wrong with interested groups lobbying on foreign as well as > domestic affairs. But policy makers should be skeptical of self-serving > arguments and citizens should demand that legislators put America’s interest > first. This is not to vilify advocates as suffering from a dual loyalty, but > to highlight that foreign-policy advocatesno less than their domestic > counterpartsare often willing to sacrifice the national and public interest > for narrower parochial concerns. Consider farm subsidies, corporate welfare, > political pork, Wall Street bailouts and much more. Unfortunately, with > international issues the consequences of special interest policy-making run > far beyond America’s shores. > Most Americans care little about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. However, > foreign policy often has expensive and even deadly results at home. It is > time for American citizens to demand that policy makers treat matters of war > and peace as something more than just another battle among special interests. > > Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special > assistant to President Reagan. He is the author and editor of several books, > includingForeign Follies: America’s New Global > Empire(Xulon).http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=23022 -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
