c) cross-purpose with the fed.

Our third concern arises from the proclivity of states to undermine our national government's conduct of foreign affairs. When the states adopt their own foreign policies, they may sow confusion in the international arena as to our nation's stances. This problem can manifest in numerous ways. The federal government may adopt a foreign policy and assure the international community of its commitment to it. But dissenting states may act at cross-purposes to that federal policy. For instance, the United States policy towards Taiwan (the Republic of China) is a study in nuance and opacity. n35 The idea is to say the minimum that satisfies the People's Republic of China (namely, that there is one China and that we recognize the People's Republic), while not wholly abandoning our longtime ally, Taiwan. n36 But suppose that individual states, including [*56] California, New York and Texas, decided to recognize Taiwan and its pretensions to sovereignty over the mainland. n37 And imagine further that such states sought to favor Taiwan, adopting policies that enraged the People's Republic. Can anyone doubt that these states could hazard our nation's relations with China, leading to heated rhetoric, trade wars, or--more troubling--real ones? Even when states and the federal government have the same general stance toward some foreign matter, seemingly minute differences can generate significant problems. Consider the events leading up to Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council. n38 In response to Burma's suppression of dissenters, Massachusetts barred state agencies from making purchases from almost any company doing business in Burma, a rather sweeping law. n39 Congress subsequently enacted a more restrained federal response to the suppression, creating some bars on foreign aid and delegating authority to the president. n40 Using that authority, the president barred U.S. persons from investing in Burma. n41 The resultant mess left members of the international community annoyed and flummoxed. The state law threatened to derail effective multilateral diplomacy because, by penalizing foreign companies for doing business with Burma, it effectively punished other nations as well as Burma. n42 Many of our allies formally expressed their displeasure--some even filed complaints with the World Trade Organization alleging that the state act violated international trade agreements. n43 As the European Union (EU) complained in its Supreme Court amicus brief, the state law "created confusion about [*57] which entity speaks for and acts on behalf of American interests." n44 Moreover, the EU explained, such laws "greatly increase the difficulty of the U.S. Government to speak consistently and with one voice [in] foreign affairs." n45