A recent front page article in the New York Times headlined “Karzai Warned Over Release Of Detainees” told of three members of the U.S. Senate bringing pressure on the president of Afghanistan concerning his country’s plan to release dozens of prisoners who were accused of attacking members of the U.S. military. On one level, the episode was one of many rough spots in the waning American military presence in that country, “Afghanistan fatigue” having joined other policy quandaries that outlast public interest (think Guantanamo).
On another level, however, there is something seriously wrong in American legislators remonstrating with foreign leaders on their own soil. Whether or not one subscribes to the “unitary executive” theory of presidential power, there is no question that the president, or at least the Executive Branch, is responsible for the conduct of foreign relations (not to mention the Chief Executive’s constitutional role as Commander in Chief). Congress, of course, gets to enact legislation that touches and concerns foreign affairs (e.g., foreign aid, funding the State Department), and the Senate gets to ratify treaties and confirm ambassadors. But it is the president who recognizes foreign regimes, commissions ambassadors, accredits foreign diplomats and in general conducts our foreign relations.
