Basic HTML Version
PAGE 12
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, APRIL 13, 1984
Congress insists on assuming the constitutional duties of the
commander in chiet:-:..
Isolationist politics have a seductive appeal. Americans, being
sane and reasonable people, do not like war. It is tempting to
believe politicians who say that all we have to
ao
to avoid war Is
to simply avoid it. --ifuteven the poTIticians selTing thatTine
know it isn't really true, particularly in Central America.
Congress wants to have it both ways--to posture as being on the
side of "peace" and to avoid any responsibility for the outcome
of its policies in the real world. The War Powers Act itself is
carefully designed for this purpose--allowing the Executive
Branch just enough authority so Congress can't be blamed, but not
enough to achieve any objective.
Journalist William Pfaff, writing from Paris in the April 6 INTERNATIONAL
HERALD TRIBUNE, observes that the consensus that once more-or-less pre
vailed in foreign policy in the United States has broken down. (For ex
ample, there was little difference in foreign policy between Democrat Harry
Truman and Republican Dwight Eisenhower.) More than anything, the differing
views on why the U.S. lost its first war in Vietnam was responsible for this
breakdow".'l..
It is time to understand that a break has taken place in the
cnaiacteranacontinuity of-xmerican forefgn policy. Thiswas�
event of the early 1970s':"" Since then, foreign observers have
complained about the lack of consistency and reliability in U.S.
policy. They have had reason to do so....
It is true that Congress and the press often thwart administra
tion actions. But why? The answer is that a national policy con
sensus no longer exists. On contested or risky issues, every
inch of the ground is fought over in both public opinion and Con
gress, and the Administration wins only part of the time....
Mr. [ Secretary of State George] Shultz says that "the United
States deserves to be thought of as a country with reasonable
predictability in what it would do, and reliability." He thinks
that Congress and political interest groups interfere in ways
that are a disservice to the national interest, producing what he
has called "light-switch diplomacy"--turned on and off according
to the swings of influence in Washington. That, unfortunately,
is exactly what American diplomacy is likely to remain for the
foreseeable future.
The United States had a reasonably consistent foreign policy from
the 1940s until the end of the '60s.
It is often forgotten,
though, that before World War II there was deep controversy over
what the country should do about developments in Europe, and in
deed over the extent to which it should involve itself in world
affairs at all. The controversy was ended by Pearl Harbor, but
it was to reemerge when the war was over.
By 1946, however, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and previously a major iso
lationist figure, had led an important part of the Republican