The dangers of ‘ethnic’ foreign policy

A few members of Congress demonstrated again last week just how a small, but disciplined and energetic ethnic lobby can use the American political system to override and harm broader U.S. national interests.

Under pressure from the Armenian-American lobby, 27 House members voted for a resolution to condemn as genocide Turkey’s brutal treatment of Armenians nearly 100 years ago.

These members of Congress assure us that Turkey will not carry through on its threat to withdraw support for U.S. troops in Iraq. Nearly 70 percent of cargo and much of the troop deployments in Iraq move through Turkey, a staunch U.S. ally and NATO member, not to mention Ankara’s restraint – so far – in dealing with Kurdish terrorists who base themselves in northern Iraq and kill Turkish soldiers and citizens.

Northern Iraq, if you haven’t noticed, is the one stable region of Iraq in George Bush and Dick Cheney’s disastrous “war on the wrong target.”

A vote in the full House is pending, and House leaders could come to their senses. During the Clinton administration, the White House prevailed upon GOP leaders to block a similar resolution. Now it is the Democratic leadership that is threatening to undermine U.S. national interests for little more than political grandstanding.

Make no mistake. What happened in 1915 in the twilight of the Ottoman empire was horrendous. Hundreds of thousands – perhaps more than 1 million – Armenians were killed by Turkish forces in the midst of World War I. The issue is hotly debated in Turkey today as that moderately Islamic country tries to secure a more democratic foundation. Left alone, it is likely that Turkey, a proud, dynamic country eager to become a full-fledged member of Europe, will recognize its historical shame.

But the last thing Turkey needs is a bunch of election-minded American politicians sounding off mainly for political gain at home. Imagine the reaction here if French or Turkish legislatures condemned the tragedy inflicted upon Native Americans.

This controversy, however, is nothing new. And it highlights a rule of American political theater and foreign policy-making: the smaller the foreign country, the more effective its U.S.-based ethnic lobby. Israel, Ireland, Cuba, Armenia, Greece, Taiwan are all small and, in some cases, island nations. But their Washington-based lobbies exercise a distorted degree of influence in American foreign policymaking, often at odds with our true national interests.

The U.S. policy of sanctions against Cuba, backed by a well-heeled Cuban-American lobby, made sense once, at least during the Cold War. But a more nuanced campaign of pressure and incentives – from both Democratic and Republican administrations – could have benefited both Cuba and the U.S. and prepared the ground for a more peaceful transition once Fidel Castro leaves power.

The Irish-American lobby for many years was dominated by elements who contributed money to IRA militants. But over the last two decades, the Irish diaspora in America has exercised a very positive influence in support of British, Irish and American efforts to bring about a remarkable relaxation in tensions.

By far the most effective ethnic lobby is the Israel lobby, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). A thorough examination of the issue is available in a new book by two respected professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.”

Mearsheimer and Walt argue that Israel is more of a strategic liability for the United States than strategic asset – and doesn’t really deserve the huge financial benefits and policy deference it receives from U.S. administrations of both political parties. The authors provide telling evidence that the Israel lobby joined forces with neo-con war hawks to press for the Bush-Cheney decision to attack Iraq – even though American Jews were less supportive of the war than the general public.

Some critics try to tar Walt and Mearsheimer with anti-Semitism. But they distort the issue. The authors note that many hardline positions pursued by AIPAC have been vigorously opposed within Israel and ultimately proven detrimental to Israel’s own interests. Active expansion of settlements in Palestinian territory – despite repeated promises to American presidents not to do so – and 1982 and 2006 wars in Lebanon are prime examples.

Lobbies are a vital part of American democracy. And their views play a critical role in a dynamic policy process in a country founded on diversity, freedom of speech and a system of checks and balances. But Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the shortcomings of democratic foreign policy-making in his study of the United States.

Twenty-six years ago, Sen. Charles Mathias Jr., a Republican from Maryland, lamented the narrow focus of ethnic lobbies in an article in Foreign Affairs. Despite benefits brought by some informed lobbies, he wrote, “ethnic politics, carried out often to excess, have proven harmful to the national interest. Public debate becomes charged with ‘betrayal’ and ‘sellout,’ when in truth the issues that divide us are questions of judgment and opinion about what is best for the nation.”

Of course, a president, with a national constituency, has more power to resist lobby pressures than individual members of Congress.

But in the current case of Armenia’s tragedy, the worst of both worlds has come to pass. We have a weak, lame-duck president with bad judgment and a timid, leaderless Congress looking for ways to embarrass his administration. The Armenia resolution is not the way to do it. It will only weaken the position of the United States, threaten U.S. troops and suggest, once again, that we do not have the leadership and strategic vision that is required of a superpower with such global interests.

If members of Congress want to look back in time, they might have done more homework on British failures in a place called Mesopotamia in 1920, and how British intervention in Iraq foundered on bitter Shi’ite-Sunni divisions before they voted to support war on Iraq in 2002. That would have been a useful exercise of political power in the national interest.

Fred Hill of Arrowsic served as a correspondent for The Baltimore Sun in Europe and Africa and later worked on national security issues for the Department of State. He may be reached at hill207@juno.com.