OK, Has Congress Had Its Fun? : Mischievous attempt to micro-manage foreign policy

the new Republican majority in Congress to develop a productive foreign policy relationship with President Clinton, and especially to avoid trying to “micro-manage” the country’s international relations. The initial GOP response is expected to be voted on by the House this week. It’s titled the National Security Revitalization Act, but essentially it’s a mischievous and ill-informed campaign document that aims to horn in on the President’s authority over foreign policy and defense. “It is vital,” Baker said last month, “that we speak to our enemies and to our allies alike in one voice.” Those wise words from one of the Republicans’ most respected foreign policy experts have not been heeded.

WHOOP-DE-DO WAY: The legislation voted out by the House National Security and International Relations committees may have been motivated, as its sponsors claim, by distress over certain Clinton Administration policies, but in no way can the resulting product be said to fix whatever’s broke.

What’s the point, for openers, of calling for a congressionally appointed commission “to address the problems posed by the continuing downward spiral of defense spending”? To assess what those problems may be and how to deal with them is clearly the responsibility of the secretary of defense, his advisers and the appropriate congressional committees, which can hear all the testimony they want from all the experts they care to invite. A commission is a whoop-de-do way to evade responsibility.

And is legislation the proper vehicle for demanding that Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia all be invited to join NATO at an early date, without regard to whether they are institutionally ready for membership? Among those strongly objecting to this arbitrary approach was Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. How and when NATO should expand is a complex and delicate question, to be answered on a country-by-country basis by NATO itself, and not by congressional fiat.

The legislation further directs the defense secretary to develop a system to protect the United States from strategic missile attacks as soon as “practical.” That last word is a weasling way of recognizing that the huge costs and doubtful effectiveness of cranking up “Star Wars” again--which many cost-conscious Republicans blanch at--means that in fact nothing much would change. Far better to continue putting most of the nation’s anti-missile research assets where they’re now most needed, into developing area defense systems to protect against Scuds and similar limited-range weapons.

NEO-ISOLATIONIST IMPULSE: Finally, the legislation would effectively gut U.N. peacekeeping operations by requiring Washington to deduct from the approximately $1 billion a year it contributes to such missions the costs of U.S. military operations that are in support of U.N. goals. That all but assures cutbacks by other major contributing states to the peacekeeping budget. But in fact the U.S. operations conducted under U.N. auspices--whether against Iraq or in Haiti--are plainly in support of American national objectives. In the end, the neo-isolationist impulse behind this demand could force the United States to act unilaterally in defense of its interests, without valued international help.

Three things can be safely said about the so-called National Security Revitalization Act: It is first and foremost a shallow political document that virtually ignores real-world conditions and needs; it will nonetheless pass both houses of Congress on a partisan vote; it will be vetoed by Clinton and that veto will be sustained. And with that out of the way, maybe Congress and the President can begin to deal seriously together with foreign and security problems.