From: Brad Dolan 
Subject: An Idea Whose Time has COME! (fwd)
Message-ID: 
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 23:29:00 -0400 (EDT)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 20:14:13 PDT
Subject: An Idea Whose Time has COME!

PUT U.S. INTERVENTION TO POPULAR VOTE
Peacekeeping: Congress resists checking presidential activism, so give
the people input in an 'electronic town hall'
An OP ED piece in the LA TIMES (10/17/95) by Alan Tonelson

Congress represents the best hope of stopping thousands of U.S. troops
being sent to Bosnia over strong public opposition, as the
Constitution intended.  But, can Congress be trusted to play its
constitutional role in this question of war and Peace?

Congress has acquiesced in so many presidential wars--in vietnam and
Lebanon during the Cold War, in Somalia and Haiti after it-- that the
conclusion is inescapeable: Our system for making responsible,
politically sustainable military intervention decisions needs a
radical fix.  Starting now, with Bosnia, all questions of putting U.S.
troops in harm's way abroad, for peacekeeping, peaceaking and other
largely humanitarian purposes, should be submitted to popular vote.

Today, with no hostile superpowers to exploit them, many foreign
crises have only local implications utterly irrelevant to American's
safety or well being.  Yet American leaders have difficulty refraining
from interventions even in the world's backwaters.  And although
Congress did force speedy withdrawals from Somalia and Haiti, it
balked at preventing U.S. involvement in these potential quagmires in
the first place.

The United States obviousl will need to use force in the post-Cold War
world. But for anyone believeing that U.S. fireign policy should
reflect the broad popular will, a new check on presidential war-making
(or peacekeeping) is imperative.  this is expecially true in cases
such as Bosnia, where the concrete benefits of intervention are
elusive but the likely consequences of failure enormous. [ Just the
type of situation that Goverment officials are drawn to like flies to
honey ]

In a difficult but rarely mortally threatening world, those who will
provide the soldiers and the resources for interventions in marginal
areas--the public deserve more control over decision-making.  A
referendum system would fit the bill, and Bosnia is the perfect place
to start.

States hold referendums on complex issues all the time.  So do many
European countries, even chaotic Russia.  Creating a nationwide
referendum here would be difficult administratively, but advances in
interactive media might permit the kind of electronic town hall
approach suggested by Ross Perot for other issues.

A referendum system would not impede the President's freedom to repel
direct attacts on U.S. territory or forces.  In fast moving but lesser
crises, a two-thirds vote in Congress before the shooting starts would
suffice to give him carte blance for a limited time.  If Congress
dawdled on voting, it would be reasonable to assume that the emergency
really wasn't

When more time for decision-mkaing is available, public fickleness
could be checked by rquiring a certain level of support, perhaps as
recorded on electronic petitions, for putting it to a referendum.  and
NO vote shold be binding (for or against military action) without a
high turnout.

Frivolous votes in favor of intervention cold be discouraged by
stipulating that a YES vote is also an authorization to finance the
operation fully through tax increases, rather than by borrowin from
future generations.  And the losers could always try to organize a new
referendum.

Undoubtedly, Americans will make foreign policy mistakes under this
new system, and perfecting it could take years.  But that's the great
thing about being a superpower in the post-Cold War world: Very few
indiviusal setback will be disastrous, and even repeated setbacks need
not create irreversible damage. In any event, experts make horrific
foreign policy mistakes so often [ HAVE THEY EVER DONE ELSE ] (just
look at U.S. Bosnia policy) that effectiveness could actually improve.

Although American commitments could seem less reliable, a strong
country capable of keeping 'em guessing is often doubly blessed in
international politics and economics, being less likely to be taken
for granted by friend and foe alike. More important, the potential
gains of a more democratically made foreign policy are hardly
negligible: a better informed public and more responsible decision
making by voters forced to confront the costs and risks of their
opinions.

Since the mid-1970s, politicians and foreign policy experts from both
parties have repeatedly urged strengthening and expanding democracy
abroad.  Why not seize and opportunity at home and in the process give
some desparately needed clarity to a Bosnia policy that has drifted
dangerously for far too long.

---SnetMgr 0.60 [r0001]
 * Origin: snet-l@world.std.com <-> FidoNet (1:330/202)