Kosovo and US Presidential Power

The U.S. President Alone Decides

Recent headlines around the world echoed this theme, using these or similar words:

On February 18, 2008, President Bush extended formal diplomatic recognition to Kosovo as "an independent and sovereign state."

So, how exactly does the United States grant diplomatic recognition? Does the Senate have to approve such a decision?

Answer: Only one man makes this decision: The President.

In support of this (alleged) presidential power:

According to http://www.onevotematters.com/diplomatic-recognition-for-kosovo/ :

QUOTE:

According to Article [sic] 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution, the President of the United States has the power to "...receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers."

This means that the US President has the power to accept the legitimacy of a foreign government by accepting its ambassador or other representative to the United States. If the President does not choose to receive the ambassador from another country, there is nothing that Congress or the Supreme Court can do about it. The power to recognize the existence of foreign countries belongs to the President alone.

:UNQUOTE.

I cannot dispute that our president has traditionally wielded this power. However, I can argue that this "power" is in violation of our Constitution. I will say why in a moment, but first I'll counter this rather simplistic argument:

"How could something which is blatantly unconstitutional have been allowed to persist for so long?"

To which I respond: "According to the Constitution, West Virginia and Maine should never have become states*. So why don't our breast-beating conservatives whine about that? So much for their vaunted adherence to that venerable old document."

Why I oppose this (alleged) presidential power:

Compare these two statements:

ONE: the President of the United States has the power to "...receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers."

TWO: According to Art II, Section 3: "....he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers..."

Statement ONE is part of a larger quote which appears above (near the beginning of this essay). Notice how the word "power" is not used as part of the Constitution's text.

Statement TWO, on the other hand, is quite different in meaning: It says the President "shall receive Ambassadors" [my emphasis], which gives the President no choice in the matter.

There are other pertinent sections of the Constitution in support of my view:

Article II, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." It says "executive Power;" it doesn't say "sole power" or "power such as is accorded by the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings." In case anybody has truly forgotten: An "executive" is one who executes; it doesn't necessarily mean one who executes his own unilaterally created policies.

Also...Article II, Section 2: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors..."

I emphasized "and he shall nominate" to again indicate that he has no choice in the matter. This quote speaks of treaty making as a power shared with the Senate. If the power to make treaties is shared, why should we assume that the power to make the ultimate form of treaty (diplomatic recognition) should rest solely in the hands of the President?

To emphasize the point a bit: If the power to grant diplomatic recognition rests solely with the President, does that mean if President McCain wakes up on the wrong side of bed he can unilaterally decide to withdraw diplomatic recognition from (say) France? This is way too much power for one man to have, and I am confident that our Constitution says so.

President Bush's deal with the Kosovo separatists

One of the overwhelming reasons why Kosovo opted for independence was because George Bush whispered in their ear: If you go for independence, we'll [meaning "I'll"] immediately grant diplomatic recognition.

Nobody on the planet (except me) is arguing: Bush doesn't have this power. However, Bushies would do well to remember that our country is bound by UN Security Council Resolution 1244: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [now Serbia] and the other States of the region..."

There are some who argue that the United States isn't bound by international law; they say "we can do whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please." In the same breath, though, they'll talk about the importance of the rule of law and that no man is above the law. Hmm...

This kind of attitude is going to come back to bite us in the ass, for we can't have it both ways: We are either for or against the rule of law. I happen to agree with Spain and China when they say: Allowing Kosovo to declare independence is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which will encourage separatist movements worldwide.

And, no, it won't do any good to piously declare (as some have): "This is a one-shot deal, which we declare to have no value as a precedent." [Didn't the US Supreme Court say something like that when it anointed Bush president instead of Gore?]

That's almost as useless as suggesting that Serbia (which lost territory when Kosovo was "created") should be given fast-track consideration for membership in the European Union. If I were the Serbians, I would be suspicious of such a "generous" offer. Maybe the international lawyer crowd in Brussels would interpret any Serbian application for EU membership as coming from a Serbia as defined by EU (that is, lacking Kosovo).

If there were truly any independent, objective court of international law, Serbia would have an air-tight case for recovering its seized territory. But we don't. Instead we have politicians running around who believe: "Laws are not made to be broken; they're made to be interpreted [to the point of breaking them if politically expedient]."

Isn't that just another way of saying: "Laws are made to be broken?"

The role of the US Senate during my administration

If I am elected as the next President of the United States, I will not exercise the "right" of the President to grant (or withhold) diplomatic recognition to any country. I will consult with the Senate, seeking advice and consent on such issues. We have to get away from the imperial presidency, for if we don't, we will become exactly what we'll deserve to become: slaves.

My suggestion regarding Kosovo

Since 1999, there has been a 16,000 member NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo to watch over a population of two million consisting of ethnic, Islamic Albanians (the vast majority) and a minority consisting mostly of Serbs. Serbia (not counting Kosovo) has a population of 8 million and they are not very happy right now.

If I were in George Bush's place, I would have whispered into the Kosovars' ears: "Under current international law, you are part of Serbia. If you declare independence, I most certainly will not extend to you diplomatic recognition. Even if the US Senate voted that I should extend this recognition, I would not since doing so would violate international law. In fact, I would urge that the peacekeeping force be used to maintain the status quo, preventing Kosovo from breaking away from Serbia."

My belief is that all people should strive to live and work together, without expecting to have their own nation-state in which they are the majority. Of course, minorities everywhere are at least subtly discriminated against. To counter this all-too-human tendency means that minorities have to work that much harder to gain acceptance.

Of course I'll take this opportunity to promote my own proposal for a radical, new-style governing constitution will go a long way toward blunting many of the effects of discrimination. My essay on Cross-Sectional Representation is explicit:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2006/11/replace_the_u_s_constitution

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

"Some way, somehow, we've got to learn to live together" - Steve.

The Best Party Available

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* Why Maine and West Virginia are illegal states: See the section entitled "The Illegal States of Maine, West Virginia, and Texas" at:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/5/constitutional_convention_definitely_needed