Two weeks ago, our very own New York City mayor reminded me why I first joined the Obama camp. On January 4th, Mayor Michael Bloomberg took advantage of our nation’s lack of a unified and steady face abroad when he inappropriately traveled to Israeli towns near Gaza and offered his support to Israel.
Disregard your political views surrounding the recent violence in Gaza. Forget your opinion on whether Israel acted offensively or defensively, whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, or whether the ceasefire came too soon or too late. Put the war aside all together, and still Bloomberg acted out of line and inappropriately when he made a trip to Israeli towns near Gaza on Jan. 4 and offered his support to Israel.
The thousands of demonstrators who filled Times Square two weeks ago and demanded an end to the violence made the first argument against Bloomberg’s trip extremely visual. They made it clear that New York does not speak with a unified voice on this issue. Mayor Bloomberg represents the city—he should represent all parts of it.
Yet, many are quick to respond to this argument by stating that whether or not each American agrees with U.S. foreign policy, Israel is a political ally of the United States, and our federal government provides it, at the very least, with diplomatic support for its actions. In this way, Bloomberg’s trip can be viewed as in line with U.S. policy. Yet, ironically, it is this very argument that brings the true inappropriateness of Bloomberg’s actions into focus.
Our federal government’s foreign policy might support Israel, but Bloomberg is not a federal official. He is a city mayor. The constitution makes clear that matters of international relations are to be left to the national government. Article 1, Section 8 delegates the powers of international commerce and war to Congress, while Article 2, Section 2 gives the president the power to make treaties, appoint ambassadors, and serve as commander-in-chief. These rules were designed to prevent one state, or in this case, one city, from forming alliances with different international actors that would conflict with alliances other states would make. The fear was that other countries could divide our nation, pitting one state against another if individual states conducted their own foreign policies. And so it was decided that we could present a unified face abroad and temper potential divisions only if the federal government controlled our foreign policy. It is in the constitution—city mayors are not to be diplomats.
Bloomberg would argue that he performed no formal acts of foreign policy during his visit, which is true. He did not sign a treaty or volunteer New York troops to join the effort. He did little more than offer his personal opinion that Israel is justified in its actions and that the international community should let Israel continue to fight against Hamas, a terrorist organization. And surely he is entitled, not only as a mayor but as a man, to hold such opinions and articulate them when asked. Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, did just that on Jan. 4 on Meet the Press.
When asked about his opinion on the matter, Reid gave answers almost identical to those of Bloomberg, citing the U.S. position on Hamas and voicing Israel’s right to defend itself. Although Reid is perhaps a bad example, as he is federal official, the point here is that Reid offered an opinion congruent to Bloomberg’s but did so from a U.S. news studio. In this way, Reid remained a politician stating his opinion, not an actor conducting foreign policy.
Bloomberg’s act of travel is what was out of line. He might have hoped only to give his personal encouragement, but in traveling to Israeli cities and shaking hands with locals, he physically offered support. Offering support, however informal, is conducting international relations. And international relations should be out of bounds for a mayor.
Bloomberg’s actions should be taken with even more seriousness considering the timing of his visit. Until this historic day, our country has been in a political vacuum of sorts. For months, Bush’s policy had little weight. Obama, holding with tradition, had left international matters to the acting president, and offered few words publicly on this subject. In that period of inactivity and uncertainty, the nation was vulnerable to influence and division. Therefore, at best, Bloomberg’s actions were politically self-centered, an attempt to look internationally in a moment when the U.S. lacked a figurehead. At worst, they were reckless.
In many ways, the world has held its breath until today, a day on which the foreign policy of the United States has the potential to change. In a matter of hours, Bloomberg and others will find it much harder to meddle in the face of our nation abroad, as the country is about to become solidified and steadfast again. As the Founding Fathers intended, we will have a president who I believe has the ability to present a confident and unified face of our nation to the world. It was this, not his plans for the economy or his ideas for health care, that first won me over. The image Obama projects as well as the trust he commands—as so many have said, his ability to unite—is what I am most excited about today.
MaryAlice Parks is a Columbia College senior majoring in history and political science. She is a co-coordinator of Artists Reaching Out. The Albright runs alternate Tuesdays. Opinion@columbiaspectator.com
