b) offensive—they don’t know what’s up!

Our second concern is related to the first. Because the states are ignorant, they are prone to offend and inflame foreign nations. States can provoke already hostile or unfriendly regimes, making fraught relations worse. Recall Rudolph Giuliani's ouster of Yasser Arafat from the Lincoln Center, a decision that, to us at least, reflects a certain naivete, namely a failure to appreciate the need to sometimes treat parties that have American blood on their hands with respect. n26 Enemies can, through time and a convergence of interests, become partners, as happened with Germany and Japan. States also can embarrass allies, damaging relationships the federal government has [*55] nurtured over time. For example, dozens of states have denounced the genocide of Armenians. n27 In contrast, the federal government has refused to use that precise word in order to avoid upsetting Turkey. n28 President Obama's decision to refer to "atrocities" instead of "genocide" in a speech commemorating the victims reflects longstanding federal policy and a concern for Turkish sensitivities. n29 Or consider the state legislation at the heart of Arizona v. United States. n30 Arizona made it a crime for unauthorized aliens to work in the state, and it empowered police to arrest persons who they had probable cause to believe were in the country illegally. n31 The law prompted Mexico to take the unusual step of filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. n32 In that brief, our southern neighbor explained that the law "caused long-term harm to Mexico-U.S. relations." n33 Suggesting that the federal government agreed with that assessment, an American diplomat conceded to the Chinese that the Arizona statute was a human rights debacle. n34