Fixing the Balance Between the Executive and Legislative Branches
Democratic Congressman William Delahunt visited Michael Glennon’s Public International Law class on April 22nd for a conversation with Fletcher students about the widening gap between the executive and legislative branches of the US government and the resulting situation in Iraq.
Delahunt
discussed the US State Department’s Circular 175 Procedure that stipulates the president must consult Congress before signing a treaty of serious magnitude.
President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kamel al-Maliki signed the momentous Declaration of Principles on November 22, 2007, without consulting Congress. The declaration suggests substantial US commitments to Iraq. US troops will be required to intervene in cases of external and
internal aggression—that is, foreign attacks and internal conflagrations.
“We’ve never been in anything like this before,” said Delahunt. Never in its history has the US agreed to deliberately participate in a civil war in a foreign country. More importantly, Congress was not formally consulted before the president signed the Declaration of Principles. Congressional hearings did take place, but no one from the administration attended. Classified meetings did not amount to much, either. Also, the majority of Iraq’s Council of Representatives (144 members) did not want a UN mandate, let alone a US mandate, until determining a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq.
As Delahunt anticipated, one of the students asked how the legislative branch planned to hold the executive branch accountable
for these actions. Broadly speaking, Delahunt emphasized two critical requirements that are also a function of a true democracy. First, there should be large majorities and congressional oversight. “Divided government is a positive thing,” Delahunt said, “but there is little oversight of overseas programs. Hundreds of billions are spent while the prestige of the US is going down, and Congress is simply ignored.” Second, US democracy needs “educated citizenry” like in the days of the Federalist Papers, and heated political debates. Because people today can be overwhelmed by information, there should be more proactive engagement both ways: voters and their candidates should engage more. “No one wants to run for office anymore,” the congressman lamented. “That’s why I like Obama—because people, especially young people, are finally getting involved in politics.”
In the case of Iraq and future military engagements, Delahunt suggested the House revisit the War Powers Act of 1973, an effort that has already been launched by Warren Christopher, Lee Hamilton, and James Baker. The congressman also referred to Ron Suskind’s book The Price of Loyalty, in which Paul O’Neil revealed his view of the Bush administration. O’Neil criticized the lack of communication between the president and the House. Furthermore, the president was already set on targeting Iraq in February 2001, which in O’Neil’s opinion, was a decision made and promoted by the like-minded ideologues.
This “cowboy diplomacy” regarding Iraq, and now increasingly Iran, must ultimately give way to “non-ideological” dialogue with Iran and Syria. Delahunt expressed the need for more diplomats who can engage with
all nations, despite their opposition to US foreign policy.
Calling Iran “the second most democratic state in the Middle East,” Delahunt called for talks between Iran and the US in order to stabilize Iraq. He repeated his hope for Barack Obama to overcome ideological barriers on the way to normalizing relations with Iran. In the meantime, Iran has increased its influence in Iraq, ironically through the same Prime Minister al-Maliki with whom President Bush signed the Declaration of Principles. Instead of leaving al-Maliki to decide which side to join in Iraq’s civil war, Delahunt wants more communication between Iran and the US. Ultimately, improving US foreign policy must start at home with fixing the balance between the executive and legislative branches.
Dmitri Goudkov, MALD ‘08