Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Presidents and others at the governmental level of analysis often play a more important part and have an unusual degree of autonomy. The ordinary political factors of public opinion, interest groups, and so forth are often set aside in consideration of the national interest as defined by a small number of national security advisors.
Public opinion is not irrelevant, but at times it can be reshaped or ignored. In crisis situations, the public often rallies around the flag, accepting the president's actions, at least as long as the results seem good and there is little disagreement among elites. If things go wrong, of course, public support falls. The Iraq story also illustrates that much of foreign policy is influenced by structural, rather than political or governmental factors. The United State's status as a superpower, with its large population, advanced economy, and enormous military capability, made it easy to take on Iraq, even through Iraq was said at the time to have the fourth largest army in the world. Without these resources, U.S. foreign policy would have been very different. The particular structure of the international system in 1990 also had important effects. The Soviet Union, which a few years earlier might have prevented action against its ally Iraq, now desperately needed Western economic help and was in no position to object to U.S. action. Although structural factors did not determine U.S. policy toward Iraq, they made a major commitment of troops possible or even probable in the early 1990s.
more subject to revision in light of events. The need for speed, unity, and secrecy in decision making, and concentration of authority in the executive branch, mean that the public can easily be excluded. This also means that government policy can sometimes shape public opinion rather than be shaped by it. At the same time, however, these limitations are neither total nor etched in stone. The American public plays a bigger part in the making of foreign policy than is sometimes imagined.
After World War Il, the United States and the Soviet Union found themselves in a series of confrontations which came to be known as the Cold War. Scholars disagree about the causes of the Cold War. Some argue that the Soviet Union was a strongly expansionist state, driven by Communist ideology and aiming for world domination. In contrast, scholars with a revisionist perspective maintain that the Soviets behaved like any other great power, seeking friendly buffer states.
Peaceful Coexistence?
The Korean War ended in 1953. Although the two powers and their allies skirmished in places like Iran, Guatemala, Lebanon, and Indonesia, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. avoided all-out war. Nonetheless, for more than 35 years, both sides spent immense resources on huge armies that faced each other across stable boundaries in Europe. The United States and the Soviets built large numbers of strategic bombers to deliver their growing stockpiles of nuclear warheads. Both began ballistic missile programs. The situation of nuclear stalemate, which came to be called mutually assured destruction (MAD), eventually became a source of stability and a basis for arms control agreements.
reciprocity from the republics) and by authorizing assistance with economic reform and food aid to stave off hunger and unrest in the old Soviet Union. The fearsome Soviet adversary of the Cold War era was no more.
Executive Branch
The president of the United States, as chief executive officer and commander in chief of the armed forces, is the top decision maker on foreign policy issues. To provide the expertise and information for making and carrying out foreign policy, he has help from an enormous number of people and organizations. The National Security Council is the main formal body for coordinating the various civilian and military agencies involved in foreign policy. In theory, the NSC includes the vicepresident, the secretary of defense, secretary of state, director
of the CIA, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other high government officials. The NSC staff, headed by the national security advisor, constitutes a miniature State Department, CIA, and Pentagon combined, right in the basement of the White House. The NSC is able to brief the president on any part of the world or on any military or intelligence matter at a moment's notice. The Department of State is the president's chief arm for getting day-to-day foreign policy information and for carrying out diplomatic activity. The State Department is organized partly along functional lines, with bureaus or offices in charge of such matters as economic affairs, human rights, international organizations, narcotics, terrorism, and refugees. But it is mainly organized geographically, with bureaus for Europe and Canada, Africa, East Asia, the Pacific, InterAmerican Affairs, the Near East, and South Asia. The geographic bureaus have country desks devoted to each nation of the world, where at least one foreign service officer is charged with keeping track of what is going on in that country. Reporting back to the Department of State are about 168 embassies in foreign capitals and 102 consulates scattered around the world. These embassies help American travelers and business people abroad, cultivate good relations with their host country, communicate U.S. policy, and gather political, economic, and military intelligence. The titan of foreign and military policy is the Defense Department, whose enormous number of employees dwarfs those of any other agency in the U.S. government. The Defense Department is organized in a complex fashion, designed to ensure a clear, hierarchical military command structure while at the same time ensuring civilian control of the military. A civilian secretary of defense, who has authority over the entire department, reports directly to the president. Civilian secretaries are in charge of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Each department includes civilian officials and a military command structure headed by people in uniform. The uniformed chiefs of each branch serve together in a body called the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who reports not only to the secretary of defense, but also directly to the president. The actual chain of command through which orders pass runs from the president through the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs to the commanders of these commands. The organization of the Defense Department represents a series of shifting compromises. The tensions between civilian control and military hierarchy, and between unity and independence of the services, are long-lasting. Inter-service rivalry can be fierce. At its best, this rivalry can provide healthy competition that makes each service try harder to be effective and helps civilian outsiders make informed decisions about which weapons systems and strategies are best. At its worst, the rivalry encourages expensive and unnecessary duplication of capabilities, and results in log-rolling deals that help obsolete systems survive. Defense politics are special, because the Defense Department is deeply intertwined with the American economy and society. Taking into account the multiplier effect of government expenditures, the number of Americans directly or indirectly dependent upon the peacetime military establishment may reach beyond ten million, or about 9 percent of the total U.S. labor force. The exact size is secret, but the U.S. intelligence community is very large. It enjoyed especially rapid growth in the early years of the Reagan administration. The most expensive U.S. intelligence agencies, consuming 75 percent or more of the federal intelligence budget and providing most of the raw intelligence information, are located in the Defense Department. The National Security Agency spends perhaps $4 billion or more per year, intercepting electronic messages from around the world, analyzing messages, breaking foreign codes, and ensuring the security of U.S. government communications. Even larger now is the National Reconnaissance Office which planned to spend $6.2 billion in 1992. Closely tied to the air force, this agency runs the satellite reconnaissance program that provided striking close-up photographs of targets and terrain in Iraq and Kuwait. Each of the armed services has a separate tactical intelligence unit as well. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) advises the National Security Council, coordinates all U.S. intelligence agencies,
gathers and evaluates intelligence information, and carries out additional functions as the NSC directs. The intelligence gathering and analysis activities of the CIA rely partly on secret agents within foreign governments and have had some spectacular successes. Nonetheless, the vast bulk of intelligence gathering does not involve spies. Much of it consists of the tedious work of evaluating thousands of publications from other countries and personal reports by diplomats, attachs, travelers, and written reports. Covert operations, designed to influence or overthrow governments abroad, are the most visible trademarks of the CIA. Covert operations are supposed to be secret, or at least officially deniable. Direct supervision of them is confined to small groups of executive branch officials. Neither Congress nor the public is much involved. Since 1980, only the two intelligence committees of the House and the Senate must be informed of major operations. Critics object that these operations infringe on the independence of foreign countries, especially when popular or freely elected governments are overthrown. They argue that the very idea of covert operations conflicts with democracy. How can the public control government actions it does not know about? The U.S. public seems ambivalent about this matter. Many Americans, though not necessarily a majority, tell pollsters that they agree with the general idea that the CIA should work secretly inside other countries to try to weaken or overthrow governments unfriendly to the United States. In contrast, the public has expressed strong disapproval of several covert actions that have come to light, such as assassination plots against foreign officials, the placing of mines in Nicaragua's harbors, and the secret arms sales to Iran.
Congress
Congress generally plays a less active role in foreign than domestic policy. Members of Congress believe that their constituents care more about policies that are close to home than those that are far away. Moreover, the executive branch, with its vast intelligence and national security apparatus, has far more information, expertise, and control of events. To be sure, the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war
and to approve all spending of money, and gives the Senate the power to approve or disapprove treaties and the appointment of ambassadors. At times, Congress challenges the president on important issues. More often, however, Congress goes along with the executive branch or is ignored. The power to declare war, for example, becomes less important when most armed conflicts are initiated by the executive branch without asking for a declaration. The treaty power means less when the executive branch relies heavily on executive agreements that do not require Senate approval. Even when congressional approval was needed on nearly all major issues of the Cold War, Congress went along with executive initiatives. Congress does have an important impact in some areas of foreign policy. Congress generally reduces the president's foreign aid budget, except for aid to Israel, which is sometimes increased. In recent years, Congress has pushed for more restrictive or retaliatory trade policies toward Japan and other international competitors. Many members of Congress, especially members of the Armed Services Committees and defense appropriations subcommittees, are concerned with military bases and defense contracts, both of which can have great economic impact on congressional districts and can affect powerful interest groups.
Structural Factors
Some of the most important factors that affect U.S. foreign policy are structural in nature. One is the enormous economic and military might of the United States. The strength of the U.S. economy is what makes it possible to produce war planes, ships, and ground forces that can operate virtually anywhere in the world, giving the United States the capacity to intervene where it chooses. By the same token, the size of the U.S. economy and its deep involvement in world trade and international investment have created U.S. interests almost everywhere. The place of the United States in the structure of the entire international system affects U.S. foreign policy. During the nineteenth century, for example, when the American economy
remained considerably smaller than that of Great Britain, the United States could depend on the British t to maintain order and ensure free trade. More broadly, the overall shape of the international system makes a great difference. A multipolar world, with many different nations of roughly equivalent power, would call for different U.S. foreign policies than did the bipolar world of the U.S.-Soviet Cold War or would aunipolar world of U.S. dominance.
1. Foreign Policy 1. In the United States, Congress declares war, and such restrictions can disadvantage the U.S. in the realm of foreign policy, but some say that some presidents have gone too far in the past. 1. The major questions in foreign policy remain: how great are the presidents powers, what role should Congress play, and how important are the public and interest groups? 2. The decision to go to war, the signing of alliances with European nations, and the negotiation of nuclear test ban treaties are examples of foreign policy that fall under majoritarian politics. 1. The president is usually the powerful figure supported by the public. 3. Foreign policy decisions, such as the adjustment of tariff rates, could reflect interest group politics too. 1. Raising the tariff on Japanese-produced steel helps American steel makers but hurts those that used to purchase Japanese steel. 4. Examples in client politics can occur when, say, America provides aid to U.S. corporations doing business abroad; another example is the U.S. involvement in Israel, since lots of Jews favor it. 1. In client or interest group politics, Congress plays a much larger role, and it can also be the forum where clashing opinions are expressed and criticism is laced. 2. Congress often seeks to expand it foreign policy power during times of controversy, especially if it is the presidents fault! 2. The Constitutional and Legal Context 1. The president is commander in chief of the armed forces, appoints ambassadors, and negotiates treaties, but Congress authorizes and appropriates money for armed forces, approves ambassadors, and ratifies treaties; thus, foreign policy can become very sticky.
1. Yet, most people think that the president is in charge of foreign affairs, and in many cases, he has asserted the right to send troops abroad for a war, plus, the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency are almost totally presidential agencies. 2. The president has signed over 7000 executive agreements with other countries that didnt require Congressional ratification, as opposed to the 1000 treaties that Congress has passed. 2. The president tends to get more Congressional approval on foreign matters than domestic matters. 3. Here are examples of presidents who have been very strong in foreign policy matters: 1. 1801: Thomas Jefferson sends the navy to deal w/ the Barbary pirates. 2. 1845: James K. Polk sends troops into Mexico to defend newly-acquired Texas. 3. 1861: Abraham Lincoln blockaded Southern ports and declared martial law. 4. 1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt sent 50 destroyers to Britain to use against Germany, even though the U.S. was technically at peace. 5. 1950: Harry S. Truman sent troops to South Korea to repulse North Korea. 6. 1960s: John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson send troops to Vietnam w/o declaring war. 7. 1989-90: George Bush sends troops to depose Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and into Saudi Arabia to defend Kuwait against invading Iraq. 4. Yet, there have been times, like during the two World Wars, when the president could not do much.
5. 6. 7.
8.
1. Leaders of other Democratic nations often have greater freedom than the president. Ones opinion of a president being too weak or strong also depends on ones support of his policies. BTW, states have very little say in foreign policies; most of that is up to the president and Congress. The Supreme Court has also often supported the president when he has made drastic measures during crises, such as when Lincoln acted questionably during the Civil War, when F.D.R. interned the Japanese during WWII, and when J.F.K. and L.B.J. sent troops to Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Congress does have certain checks on the president, but theyre political, not Constitutional: 1. Limitations on the presidents ability to give military or economic aid to other countries. 2. The War Powers Act, which, when passed in 1973, said that a president must report to Congress within 48 hours the sending of troops into hostilities, that Congress must approve of a continuation of hostility within 60 days after troops are sent and that the president must withdraw troops if Congress doesnt continue to allow troops being placed there, and that Congress can passed an unvetoable concurrent resolution directing the removing of U.S. troops that the president MUST obey. 1. Part of this act was struck down when the Supreme Court banned the legislative veto, but other parts have not been tested in court, and no president has acknowledged the Constitutionality of this act. 3. Usually, though, Congress supports the president during times of war or during quick attacks.
4. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees must be kept known of all covert activities. 3. The Machinery of Foreign Policy 1. Foreign policy used to be almost completely taken care of by the Secretary of State, but ever since World War II, the president and numerous agencies have taken larger roles in directing it. 1. The Defense Department, CIA, and Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor have mission abroad, and today, foreign policy is simply too big of a job for one person to handle. 2. The president thus hires a staff (part of the National Security Council) to coordinate foreign policy for him and give him balanced accounts of matters. 1. Controversial matters will almost always become public, though. 2. Each side of a group that participates in foreign policy often roots for itself and is most optimistic when it can run things. 4. Foreign Policy and Public Opinion 1. Before WWII, most people opposed U.S. involvement in international affairs, but afterwards, the public saw how important it was for the U.S. to take the reigns of foreign policy. 1. This occurred during WWII because the war was practically unopposed, was very successful, had avenged an attack on U.S. soil, and had put the U.S. at the top of the world powers. 2. Before, most people, Congress included, supported a pacifist, isolationist, noninterventionist policy, but the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor changed all of that, resulting in near-universal support for the war and active involvement in post-war world affairs (i.e. United Nations).
3. This persisted until the horror of the Vietnam War quelled that former enthusiasm. 2. The public usually seems to support the president more after major foreign policy events; even after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, when J.F.K. accepted responsibility for the mistakes, his popularity rose! 1. However, although a president receives support just after a major international incident, if that incident drags on and stalemates, he will lose support (i.e. Vietnam), so presidents do not always eagerly welcome major international events to approach them. 2. Interestingly, while the public thinks more bitterly about Vietnam than about Korea, public opinion was the same for both; it was the elites opinion that okayed Korea but not Vietnam. 3. Basically, for presidents, either fight popular, successful battles or engage in short ones. 3. The general public is usually less informed and will tend to support successful campaigns and not support failing efforts. 1. The political elite, however, is more volatile and moralistic (in Vietnam, while average citizens didnt like the U.S. being so defensive, the elite didnt like the U.S. being so offensive). 2. The leaders have a more liberal and internationalist outlook than the general public, which favors protecting local interest and American citizens. 5. Cleavages Among Foreign Policy Elites 1. Since public opinion on foreign policy is mushy and permissive, the opinion of political elites is very important. 1. The political elite consists of those people with administrative positions in the foreign policy field and the members and staffs of
the key congressional committees concerned with foreign affairs and various private organizations that help shape elite opinion, as well as the influential columnists and editorial writers of the national press. 2. The beliefs of such elites can be called worldviews, comprehensive mental pictures of the major issues facing the United States today. 1. One of the most influential worldviews was written by George F. Kennan and basically led to the massive arms race against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. 2. A predominant worldview is important because it prevails over other views. 3. There have been three general worldviews since the 1920s: isolationism, which referred to the U.S.s ignorance of world affairs as a result of its unhappy experiences during World War I; antiappeasement (also called containment) which was the result of World War II, after Adolf Hitler nearly took over Europe after being repeatedly appeased, and basically killed isolationism (especially the Pearl Harbor bombing); and disengagement, which resulted from the bad Vietnam experience and the new younger political elite that was rising up and desired a less active involvement in world affairs. 1. Vietnam continues to color discussions of foreign policy, and every active step into international hostilities could turn into another Vietnam, critics say. 6. The Beginning of a New Era 1. After the Soviet Union fell, a new era began, but as the U.S.S.R. was breaking up, antiappeasement folks were saying that the Soviet Union was still dangerous, since it had lost member states as a result of economic conditions, not because of philosophical changes, while disengagementfavoring elites held that since Europe was now
safe from attack, U.S. forces could be reduced, and Moscow WAS changing. 1. After Russian president Boris Yeltsin successfully broke up a coup that had captured Mikhail Gorbachev, he became a hero, felled the Soviet Union, and ultimately turned Russia completely into a democratic state. 2. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, foreign policy may have become harder, since before, it was basically anti-Soviet Union, and today, there are threats that there may be more coups in Russia that can reclaim power and turn Russia Communist again; that fighting within and among the remnants of the Soviet empire (i.e. Bosnia and Serbia) could draw other countries in; that ancient antagonism in the Middle East could explode; that nuclear weapons can explode; and that China could rise to be a threat. 1. How the U.S. reacts to such threats depends on the political elite, some of which say that the U.S. shouldnt be the worlds policeman, others of which say the U.S. is the only power strong enough to prevent the rise of regional aggressors. 3. The United Nations has played a large role in settling conflicts among member nations, and now that it is no longer dominated by a conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, it can act more certainly without appearing to break its neutrality. 1. U.N. missions (like the one in Kuwait) have become more diverse and unopposed by the Big Five, and U.N. Peacekeeping Missions have also become more numerous. 4. Some people want the U.S. to work through the U.N. while others dont want U.S. policy controlled by other nations.
1. Liberals like the U.S. to use the U.N.; conservatives favor acting w/o U.N. authority or controls.