COLUMN: Bumbling U.S. foreign policy

From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '97 From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '97 Congress finished its latest legislative session last week with a deeply foolish and irresponsible decision. Congress left for vacation after passing the foreign operations spending bill -- a tiny percentage of the federal budget which funds the State Department and all of our nation's foreign assistance. However, the bill lacked provisions that would pay off America's chronic debt to the United Nations -- nearly $1 billion. The administration's request for the transfer of $3.5 billion to the International Monetary Fund, principally to bail out Indonesia in the same way U.S. funds helped save the Mexican economy from possible ruin two years ago, was denied. Ideally, our nation's highest legislative body would consider each bill on its own merits, vetoing those whose essence stands opposed to our national interests and the wishes of the people, passing those whose outcome would be favorable to the nation. Following this model, the rationale behind a failure to fund specific programs or agencies would lie either their ideological underpinnings. Debate would be focused either on the need of the nation for the program or whether a specific allotment of funds would be the most effective way for it to be effected. The behavior of Congress in regards to next year's foreign operations bill fails both of these tests. No one questioned the basic notion underscoring of the bill -- that the U.S. should have an activist foreign policy designed to further our agenda in disparate locations across the globe. No one questioned the need for the U.N. or the I.M.F. The reasons for the bill's failure was not a debate over how best to spend taxpayers' money so these organizations could best implement their stated goals. Instead, the bill stalled for the simple reason that some Republicans in the House of Representatives object to public support for abortion.One might ask -- exactly how does abortion relate to the paying of our U.N. bill or to bailing out Indonesia? The answer is, of course, there is no logic to the connection. Our financial support for these organizations is being held hostage -- a political prisoner, if you will -- by a group led by New Jersey Republican Chris Smith. They demand the President accept an anti-abortion provision in the foreign operations bill, one which would bar the use of Federal money for overseas abortion services or for lobbying for such services. Until this provision is passed into law, threatens the group, money will not be released to the U.N. or the I.M.F. The nation's anti-choice/pro-life forces and their adherents in Congress feel such a rule should become law. Though this may be objectionable to the majority of the populace, it is entirely within their rights to push for its enactment. To tie one piece of legislation to another, unrelated statute -- the I.M.F., we must remember, does not provide medical services of any sort -- is extortion of the highest order. This maneuver could not have come at a worse moment. The economies of Southeast Asia are in crisis mode -- it remains to be seen whether Indonesia is the only economy that will need an I.M.F.-funded bailout. Though the urgency of crisis with Iraq seems now to have faded, President Clinton's attempts to rally other members of the U.N. security council last week were hindered in part by the continued perception of the U.S. as a debtor. We have spoken in this space in weeks previous about the consolidation of authority over foreign policy by the executive that has taken place since World War II. A prominent historian has termed this trend "the growth of the Imperial presidency." In many ways this is understood to be a problematic tendency, bringing the formulation of foreign policy away from the more popularly controlled bodies of Congress. The recent behavior displayed by Congress may cause us to question the idea that the imperial presidency should be viewed in negative tones. The subversion of vitally important spending measures to unrelated ideological whims is simply irresponsible. The high-profile nature of most presidential involvement in foreign policy means he or she could never get away with such actions. In this way, the diminishing responsibility of Congress for foreign policy matters may be cause for relief.