Election 2008

LOS ANGELES – The sprawling coastal megapolis of Southern California continues to battle fires in its arid chaparral-filled hillsides, so for the moment the local focus is not on politics or elections but on disaster relief and providing shelter for a half million displaced residents. But Hurricane Katrina proved that a botched relief effort can have enormous repercussions on national politics and even international relations. As the President visits the disaster area tomorrow, accompanied by Governor Schwarzenegger, comparisons with Katrina will be hard to avoid. Both men are oddly in the background of the 2008 elections landscape – the unpopular Bush shunned by Republican candidates to replace him, Schwarzenegger a victim of his foreign birth. Amidst the natural tragedy, political ironies are inescapable: Schwarzenegger has a “Giuliani moment” but can’t run for higher office while President Bush, learning from Katrina, will be faulted for treating San Diego better than New Orleans.

A visitor to Los Angeles is struck by this region’s Hispanic character and complexion and, along with it, the salience of the Hispanic vote in next year’s election. Bush did well with the Hispanic voters in 2000 and 2004, but this is one part of the electorate whose sympathies next year are hard to predict. The first Hispanic candidate, Bill Richardson, has run an oddly listless race. Non-Hispanic politicians tread carefully while, behind the scenes, many are preoccupied with the immigration issue. The Internet was awash yesterday with warnings about Senator Reid’s maneuvers in the Senate on the so-called “DREAM” legislation to grant citizenship to the younger generation of foreign born (illegal) residents. Lou Dobbs, on CNN last night, was particularly strident, accusing both parties of “pandering” to the Hispanic community.

Immigration, of course, has a foreign policy dimension, as President Bush’s speech on Cuba today in Washington illustrates. A Cuban reaching Florida’s shores gets legal sanctuary, a Mexican fleeing poverty and chaos becomes an illegal immigrant in California. Austrian-born immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger, watching from the election sidelines, probably has more than a few thoughts on the subject, as he ponders the Constitutional provision that keeps him out of the race.

Congress has not been very surefooted of late when it comes to declaring foreign policy by means of Congressional Resolution. The latest example comes in the form of H. Res. 106, passed last week by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which condemns the Ottoman Empire’s murderous behavior in 1915, when the Armenian population of eastern Anatolia was nearly extinguished.

After several days of repercussions that included Turkey recalling its ambassador and threatening to end bilateral military cooperation with the United States, there were signs today that the Democratic leadership in the House was planning to quietly shelve the resolution so it would not get voted on in the full House.

Now the U.S. is now in the baleful position of having worsened relations with Turkey without even getting points for principled action.

From the standpoint of current U.S. foreign policy, the timing of this whole affair could not have been worse. The Republic of Turkey is a key U.S. ally and partner. Ankara’s cooperation and support are crucial to U.S. military activities in Iraq. Turkey represents a modern country with an Islamic majority that endorses the separation of mosque and state. Add to this the extremely sensitive situation on Turkey’s border with Iraq, Turkey’s restive attitude toward the Kurdish semi-state developing in northern Iraq, and the latest vote today by the Turkish parliament to authorize military incursions across the border to attack suspected PKK enclaves, and one is left with a sinking feeling about what may happen next.

This is not to say that Turkey should be allowed to deny the actions of the Ottoman Turks ninety years ago. But there are better ways – and much better timing – to achieve atonement and reconciliation.

It would also help if congressional resolutions were more consistent, and less politically expedient. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- CA) must have thought at first it would be easy to support this measure because her party is not in the White House and would not have to bear the consequences – at least not yet – for worsening US-Turkish relations. She appears now to be reconsidering.

For better or worse, when Democrats or Republicans control both the Executive Branch and Congress, Congress passes very few resolutions that are considered offensive to key allies. When power is divided in Washington, Congressional forays into foreign policy don’t have the same consequences and it becomes easier to stand on “principle.”

Perhaps more important, the temptation is great, during election seasons, to solicit votes by actions that appeal to ethnic voters. California, home to the largest part of America’s Armenian diaspora, will be key to the outcome of the 2008 elections. Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan – other sites of more recent genocides – are less present in America’s immigrant/ethnic communities, or we might see more resolutions in this election season on their behalf.

As Congress recalculates its interest in this issue, it might also keep in mind its October 2002 Resolution supporting the Iraq war, which seems so hasty in light of subsequent events. When the U.S. moved ahead and invaded Iraq, the Turkish parliament opposed its own government and refused to authorize use of Turkish airspace for the U.S.-led invasion. Maybe Congress would do well to listen occasionally to its counterparts in Ankara.