For a major part of his term President Obama has been blamed both for his own mistakes as well as for those of his predecessors, for those which he never committed. But — how independent is the US President in his decision making and what kind of pressure is he subject to? Radio VR is discussing it with Russian expert in US policies Areg Galstyan.
First of all, we must understand that the US is the only state in the world where lobbying is permitted and regulated at the legislative level. Today in America there are hundreds of different companies providing power to the wealthy customers. At the same time, there are very powerful lobbies. For example, the oil lobby, the health lobby, gun lobby, which are a Republican Party-oriented commercial and educational, financial lobbies, which is in close contact with the Democrats.
It should be noted that the majority of larger organizations and corporations operate and win over the legislature from both parties. And now lobbying is the third largest enterprise in the American national capital, after the Government and tourism. There are thousands or more people lobbying the legislature and some executive branches at different levels of the American Government. And the lobby center, interest groups and advocates of all kinds are very influential in the American elections. And they participate in the campaigns in a variety of ways.
That’s why, first, we must understand the difference between lobbying and public advocacy. Despite the fact that public advocacy and lobbying come from the same source – a fundamental right of free speech, assembly and the right to petition the government, which are guaranteed by the American Constitution. However, a federally registered lobby is defined in the law. And now the lobbies play an assertion role in the five key functions of Congress. There are: representation, law-making, deliberation, oversight and education of the American public. It plays an assertion role in the administration of a public policy in the executive branches of Government.
Whatever we call it – lobby or advocacy – we mean a horrible profession. Yes, lobbyist is a horrible profession. And we also have negative examples as, for example, Jack Abramoff or Bob Ney. And in the US we have top ten lobbyists who are influencing the American foreign policy.
Do I get you right that President Obama, if I remember it correctly, used to somehow try to oppose this practice? Is my understanding correct?
Areg Galstyan: Yes, it is correct. Obama was famous for being anti-lobbyist. In 2008 he said that – lobbies don’t fund my campaign, they will not run my White House and they will not draw out the voices of the American people when I'm the President of the US. But Obama has promised a lot of things. We must understand that Obama as the candidate and Obama as the President are at different levels of political reality. Obama was sure that he could ignore the lobbies and could take them not seriously.
But lobbying is an integral part of the American political system. Moreover, you cannot find any serious political decision in Washington accepted without the lobbies’ participation. And in this case, as the Illinois Senator, he lobbied the interests of Polish and Armenian diasporas. In addition, he has close contacts and very strong ties with the leading Saudi Arabia lobbyists in America, such as Tony Rezko. And now, a large number of lobbyists work in the Obama administration – Eric Holder, John Podesta, Patrick Gaspard, Thomas Donilon and others.
And now, according to the analysts from the Center of Responsive Politics, more than 15 current members of the Obama administration are the former lobbyists and, if combined, they’ve worked for over 500 years for the firms that lobby the government. And I think it is very remarkable. It shows that Obama, making some political decision, cannot ignore this factor.
On the other hand, now Obama is anti-big-oil lobbyist and pro-financial lobbyist. The oil industry is integral with the law makers. Nobody can argue with that. For example, George W. Bush and his presidential cabinet had deep ties to different oil companies. For example, the Vice-President Dick Cheney was the Chief Executive of Halliburton. Condoleezza Rice was the Director of Chevron. In addition, big oil spends on lobbies more than any other group. Only in 2010 they’ve spent near $200 million for lobbying.
But Obama is anti-oil lobbyist and a pro-financial lobbyist. He supports such financial organizations as the Goldman Sachs, because Goldman Sachs has contributed to Obama’s campaign nearly $4 million.
But how does that translate into what we actually see in the US foreign policies, in the US domestic policies? How does the influence of those influence groups affect the decision making in those domains?
Areg Galstyan: Well, the lobbies, for example, some financial or some oil organizations, the gun lobby, they have their representatives in Congress and in the White House and they lobby their interests. It is a very easy system for lobbying; it is the direct lobbying. They can do that, because they have a lot of money, they have the influence, they have the strong political ties with the most powerful American politicians. For example, the Senate majority leader Harry Reid, he is the lobbyist of Exxon Mobil. And Exxon Mobil pays him and he lobbies the interests of this corporation. And there are others.
I want to say that it is very easy, because the legislator needs money and you, as a director of a big company or corporation, your success cannot be effective without your direct lobbyist in Congress or in the White House.
Right! Suppose, we take, for example, something of the latest news in the foreign policy, say, the ME. How have those interests of the lobbying groups been translated into the developments in the ME? Could we talk about that?
Areg Galstyan: Yes, we can. But, first of all, it is necessary to understand that lobbyism is a very important factor in the political decisions making process, but not the main one. The main factor is the national interests of the US. In this case we have the national interests of the US in the ME and the interests of some lobbyists there. For example, now the US needs a dialog with Iran. But the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee as a lobby, they are not interested in it. And we see the conflict between the American national interests and this lobby.
In Syria we have the interests of the US and we have the interests of, for example, some Saudi Arabian lobby. But in this case we have no conflict, because the US is interested in a coup d'état in Syria and Saudi Arabia is interested in this. And they give money for some legislator, and they are effectively lobbying it. A lot of senators and congressmen, they have strong ties with the representatives of the Saudi Arabian lobby in the US, including Obama as well. As I've mentioned Obama has a good relation with Tony Rezko. Tony Rezko is the main representative of the Saudi lobby in the US. And they support the Syrian rebels. And in this case, Obama supports the Syrian rebels, and Congress supports the Syrian rebels.
But if the interests of lobbies come into a conflict with the national interests of the country, you cannot be successful. For example, Obama as the candidate promised to recognize the Armenian genocide. But as the President he didn’t, despite the serious influence of the Armenian lobby. Why? Because the strategic relationship with Turkey is more important for America, than the Armenian question. Or for example, in the ME, despite the influence of the powerful Israeli lobby, America takes off the sanctions against Iran. And now Iran and the US have a political dialog. That’s why lobbying shouldn’t be idealized.
For example, if we connect the lobby with the Ukrainian question, we can see that Obama was trying to maintain his own policy without connection to the lobbyists. And he supported Ukraine, and he tried to hold onto the point of reforming the International Monetary Fund. But Koch brothers’ oil lobby blocked this resolution and Obama realized that he must accept the interests of this lobbyists. So, every situation is unique.
From what you are saying I get an impression that, perhaps, it is not exactly fair to blame all the faults and all the trouble the US is going through now on President Obama alone.
Areg Galstyan: Yes, of course. You must understand that Obama has received a very heavy political legacy of Bush and neoconservative elite in general. But he withdrew the American troops from Iraq and the majority of the American contingent from Afghanistan. So, we cannot say that Obama failed the entire foreign policy. But, of course, he’s made a lot of mistakes. We must understand that Obama is a very proud politician. And he doesn’t want to admit that he was wrong. He doesn’t like some advices. He often ignores the members of his administration, Congress and lobbies.
At the same time, Obama likes to blame the others. So, he accused the secret service that they had underestimated the threat of the ISIS, for example. If you want to know about the critics from the mass media, I want to say that many media outlets received financial support from various corporations and they lobby their interests. So, many of the articles against Obama are just the orders from the lobbies. And on the other hand, we have the factor of personal dislike. For example, the speaker of the House John Boehner doesn’t like Obama and he doesn’t support his decisions, even if he makes the correct ones and even if these decisions are pro-Republican. He just doesn’t like Obama and that’s all.
So, of course, we cannot say that Obama failed the entire foreign policy, that it is just Obama or any other person. In the US you cannot say that only one person is guilty. It is not like that, because we have Congress, we have the Ministry of Defense, we have the secret services and others. And we cannot say that Obama can control all the American political elites.
You said that he doesn’t listen to some of his advisors. Whom does he listen to? Who are his closest aides and advisors, whom he still listens to?
Areg Galstyan: There are some persons, for example, John Podesta. Now John Podesta works in Obama administration. And he is the close friend of Obama. As I've mentioned, Tony Rezko, he is also the close friend of Obama, and also, in the Syrian case. Michael Kempner, he was the General Director of the one of the largest American farm lobbying groups. And I think that’s all, four or five persons.
How professional are they as policy advisers?
Areg Galstyan: Tony Rezko is not a politician, he is a businessman, but he is a lobbyist. He is the Chief Executive Director of one of the Arabian funds which is situated in the US. He has strong ties with the Democratic Party and with Obama, because he is from Chicago, as well as Obama. John Podesta is a professional politician and he is a professional lobbyist. And I think that Podesta can say Obama that something is wrong, and Obama can accept it. Michael Kempner is a professional lobbyist, he is a political technology expert. But I don’t think that he is a very serious foreign affairs advisor. I think that Michael Kempner just helps Obama to understand the internal processes in the US and Michael Kempner gives some advice on, for example, the immigration reform or the budget reform and others. So, that’s why we have this situation when Obama doesn’t listen to his Vice President Joe Biden, but he can accept the advices from non-politician Tony Rezko. And of course, I think that he is one of the main factors that influenced on Obama’s decision making process, and that’s why he made a lot of mistakes.
