Transcript foreign policy

GOVT 2305
Foreign Policy
Here is another of our occasional
forays into public policy.
In this case we will be looking at
foreign policy and determine how
the various governing and political
actors impact out relations with
foreign countries.
For general reading on the subject
click on the following:
Foreign Affairs: Foreign Policy.
The presidency – due to the nature of the
constitutional powers it is granted - has greater
discretion in foreign policy than in domestic
policy.
This was the point made in the two presidencies
thesis. The president shares power with
Congress over domestic policy. Whenever
domestic policy is dominant, the presidency
tend to be a bit weaker than if everyone is
focused on a foreign crisis – especially a war.
Nevertheless, the other branches can weigh in
on foreign policy questions, and each can
influence it to some degree based on their
functions. The legislature makes laws that
establish the executive agencies that carry out
foreign policy and provide guidelines for how
they are implemented. They also provide
oversee the actions of the executive branch.
The Judiciary can rule on any constitutional
questions that arise regarding the activities of
the other two branches.
The Supreme Court’s 1936 decision
in US v Curtis-Wright played a role
in justifying an expansive view of
the power of the executive branch
to conduct foreign affairs.
For a more recent example of a
challenge to the President’s
Foreign Affairs Power click here.
If you want to know what the
smart people have to say about
this, here is an expansive look at
the foreign policy roles of the
President and Congress according
to the State Department.
It’s a good thorough look at the subject.
If you feel ambitious, here is a Yale
Law Journal article: The Executive
power over Foreign Affairs. And
here is a briefer Harvard Law
Journal article on the same
subject.
To get a sense of the relationship
that can exist among the branches,
here is a rough, descriptive
diagram regarding military and
diplomatic powers:
But what is foreign policy?
The diplomatic policy of a nation in
its interactions with other nations.
More broadly, it can be defined as:
“The foreign policy of the United
States is the way in which it
interacts with foreign nations and
sets standards of interaction for its
organizations, corporations and
individual citizens.” – Wikipedia.
Foreign policy is multi faceted and can
impact a variety of ways that nations
interact. This can not only involve the
official relations between the governments
of different nations, but the private
organizations within each country as well.
It also involves the nation’s relationship
with large international organizations.
These interactions cover a great
number of separate policies.
Each presents a unique challenge
and has a different set of actors
and institutions that impact them.
Policy Arenas
Defense
Diplomacy
Trade (legal and illegal)
Finance
Immigration
Environmentalism
etc . . .
The list is exhaustive, and with technological changes – think of
the World Wide Web - one could argue that very few policies
established by any nation have little or no impact on others.
The actors, issues and goals in each
of these arenas is distinct – we will
review the bulk of these below.
First a look at the
goals of foreign policy.
The Lowi text argues that these are
the principle – interrelated - goals
of American foreign policy:
Security
Prosperity
Creation of a Better World
It is worth pointing out that not
everyone shares these objectives.
Ideological disputes exist over some of
these, notably the later two. Is it the
nation’s business that the world be
“better” and how do we decide what
“better” means? How involved in
foreign policy ought we be?
And depending on how one defines “the
creation of a better world” the liberal is
more likely to support these efforts given
their commitment to equality, especially
when it comes to supporting poor
countries, and increasingly in order to stop
acts of genocide. The conservative is more
likely to oppose these measures, or at least
not prioritize them, unless they directly
relate to the well being of the US.
Depending upon one’s definition of
“prosperity” the free market
conservative would want to pursue
foreign relationships – and use the
strength of government to
facilitate it - in order to enhance
business opportunities. The liberal
would see this as exploitation.
The libertarian would argue that we
should only be involved minimally, and
these should focus strictly on security.
Anything else is a purely individual
decision made by whoever wishes to
become involved.
For examples, here are some of Ron
Paul’s statements on foreign policy.
But some of the Federalist Papers
argued that a stronger national
government was necessary in
order to more effectively manage
foreign affairs. Papers #2 to #5
focused on this issue.
One of the points made was that a
confederated government was
unlikely to be able to establish a
solid foreign policy, and disputes
between the states could actually
increase the likelihood that the
nation would enter into
international conflicts.
This explains the prohibitions that
exist against the states having
foreign policy powers. These are
listed in Article One, Section Ten of
the US Constitution.
It is commonly pointed out that
Washington, in his Farewell
Address (Wikipedia), argued that
American should have “as little
political connection as possible”
with foreign nations and should
avoid “permanent alliances.”
The need to have one consistent
foreign policy was a driving force
behind the Federalists desire to pass a
stronger constitution.
State driven foreign policy could be
fatal to the preservation of the
Republic. The states could split into
different factions supporting strong
relations with different countries.
1 - Security
The United States exists in an often
hostile world, and a variety of
institutions have evolved to assist
facing those threats effectively.
Precisely defining the word “security”
can be difficult however, and it can be
controversial determining what in fact
constitutes a threat, as well as
determining how best to address that
threat.
First, what constitutes a legitimate
threat? And who gets to decide
what nations and organizations are
in fact threats? How are threats
assessed? Also, what actions are
and are not proper in order to
respond to these threats? Who
develops and implements them?
Take these three separate policies
(the three D’s of foreign policy)
that exist to deal with potential
threats.
Development
Diplomacy
Defense
Development: Some argue that security is
best dealt with pro-actively by helping the
nations of the world to build up per capita
wealth and capital. This assumes that the
nations that are most likely to become
hostile to the US are relatively
impoverished and totalitarian.
This is the argument made in this U.S.
Global Development Policy Fact Sheet.
This is based on the theory that
economically developed nations with
democratic governments rarely go to war
with each other.
The nations that the US has had military
conflict with recently have been relatively
poor and autocratic. Would that conflict
have been avoided if the nations were
wealthier and more democratic?
It is argued that no two countries
with a McDonald’s have ever gone
to war with each other, that’s not
really true, but the point is well
taken.
Wealthy countries have more to lose from
war, so they tend to find other ways to
work out their disagreements.
The agency primarily responsible for
administering civilian foreign aid is the
United States Agency for International
Development (Wikipedia) USAID,
which is an independent federal
agency that works under the guidance
of the President, the Secretary of State
and the National Security Council.
Here is a link to USAID’s
Legislative Liaison Division.
Click here for the Center for Global
Development’s description of
Congress’ role in development
policy.
The following committees have
congressional jurisdiction over
development policy:
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Senate Foreign Affairs Committee
Those who seek to deal with security
through development try to ensure
that other countries share the same
general attitudes that the US has.
This is expected to minimize the
degree of conflict that the US is likely
to have with a foreign country.
If not there is always diplomacy.
Diplomacy: “The art and practice
of conducting negotiations
between nations.”
Security can also be obtained – it is
argued – with a healthy diplomatic
corps backed with a professional
foreign service.
As we know from previous slides, the
first executive department established
was the State Department.
Generally, positions in the State
Departments have been considered to
be reserved for elites. This is true for
the foreign service as well.
An example of these elites is The
Wise Men, a group of six men –
with elite East Coast backgrounds –
that dominated foreign policy
establishment from the 1940s –
1960s.
Worth perusing:
American Diplomacy
There is an ongoing conflict
between those who seek
diplomatic solutions to security
threats and those who seek
military solutions.
“A diplomacy that ends in war has
failed in its primary objective.” –
Hans Morgenthau.
For additional info, read Morgenthau’s Six
Principles of Political Realism.
Which leads to defense, naturally.
“War is diplomacy by other
means”. – Carl von Clausewitz.
Defense: If diplomacy fails, military actions
are inevitable. As discussed previously the
War Department was established soon
after the State Department, and was
reorganized in 1947 to establish the
Defense Department. This was to ensure
that the US would no longer simply
respond to threats, but could deter them
(deterrence) by having a sufficiently large
military to resist attack.
Aside from having a peacetime military, the
purpose of the Defense Department was
intended to increase coordination between
agencies that previously were detached
and non-communicative.
The reason the Pentagon was built was to
create one place where these agencies
could be housed. Previously they were
spread all across DC.
The reorganization in 1947 also
included the creation of what is
now known as the intelligence
community, which is composed of
various intelligence gathering
agencies, most notably the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The key question with military
power is what factors are used to
justify it.
In previous slides, we discussed the
small number of declared wars and
increased number of military
operations and the conflicts
associated with them.
There’s little reason to repeat that
information here.
But it’s worth considering the
different doctrines that have been
developed by presidents over
history to justify the use of force.
Generally American use of power
has expanded as the nation grew.
The defining approach was established
in 1823: Monroe Doctrine.
Any intervention by a European nation
in North or South America would be
taken as an aggressive act which the
United States could retaliate against.
America also claimed a right to all land
westward to the Pacific. This was
called Manifest Destiny and it involved
an aggressive use of American power
to claim all this land.
But doing so ensured that the US
would eventually become a power on
the Pacific as well as the Atlantic.
Manifest Destiny was US foreign
policy in the 19th Century.
The Louisiana Purchase ensured
that the United States would
control the Mississippi River and its
access to the Gulf. No foreign
power could limit the access of
American goods to the world.
Westward expansion also required
a series of Indian Wars to remove
native tribes. In Texas the most
significant was the Comanche War.
The Mexican American War was
fought to solidify the annexation of
Texas, establish the Rio Grande as
the southern border and to occupy
what is now the southwestern part
of the United States. By the way,
part of the goal of the War of 1812
was to capture part of Canada.
Once the frontier was closed, and
the West was won, American
attention turned overseas.
Theodore Roosevelt used American
power to aggressively police
activities in the Western
Hemisphere. Territorial expansion
began overseas.
American overseas expansion began
with the Spanish American War –
which was fought partially based on
the Monroe Doctrine. The US claimed
the right to intervene between Spain
and Cuba. After winning the 10 week
war, the US took control of Puerto
Rice, Guam and the Philippines, in
addition to Cuba.
T Roosevelt was also responsible
for inciting the Panamanian revolt
against Columbia in order to
establish themselves as an
independent nation which then
allowed for the creation of the
Panama Canal.
Since the US saw no immediate interests in
the European Conflict which began after
the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in
1914 (it was not subject to the Monroe
Doctrine) the US stayed neutral until
German submarine attacks drew it in. The
US had been supplying the British – so
there were questions raised about whether
the US was in fact neutral.
Woodrow Wilson was president
during that time and – like TR –
promoted an aggressive use of
American power to ensure the
foreign affairs would benefit the
nation. This has since been
referred to as Wilsonianism.
In a sense this would nationalize the Monroe
Doctrine. The U.S. would claim the right to
interfere in the affairs of any nation if doing so
would benefit us.
The problem is that we assume that out
intervention creates more good than harm. Do
we overestimate our ability to predict the
consequences of our interventions?
But isolationism would remain
popular for some time. This placed
limits on the implementation of
Wilsonian policies.
It is still a prominent position taken
by many Americans.
For a description of isolationism and
the conflict over whether the United
States should be involved in foreign
affairs, click here. I also recommend
that you read The Myth of American
Isolationism, not everyone believes
that American has resisted foreign
entanglements over its history.
As a consequence of the carnage in WWI,
calls were made to establish an
international organization to reconcile
disputes between nations so that they do
not become violent.
The proposal became the League of
Nations, but though Woodrow Wilson
helped establish it, the Senate refused to
ratify the treaty and the US did not join up.
Around this period, the Preparedness
Movement developed which promoted a
stronger military in order to allow the
nation to provide for a stronger, ongoing
defense. The sinking of the Lusitania in
1915 and Pancho Villa’s raids in New
Mexico led to the popularity of the effort
(put it on the Policy Agenda), but it would
not succeed until after WW2. Critics
complained that the nation was
unprepared for war, and this invited attack.
Nevertheless, as in WW1, the US
tried to maintain neutrality prior to
WW2. That proved difficult.
Again, there was a call for
neutrality – isolationism – prior to
an attack which brought the nation
into the war.
As we already know, following
WW2, the US rethought its military
policy and developed the policy of
deterrence to thwart attempts to
attack the nation by developing an
overwhelming – and expensive –
military to intimidate potential
opponents.
The most consequential result was the
establishment of a permanent peace time
military under the authority of the
Department of Defense (Wikipedia). This
was in addition to the creation of an
independent agency to collect intelligence:
the Central Intelligence Agency (Wikipedia)
as well as an entire Intelligence
Community.
Wilsonianism began to be
implemented.
The law responsible for creating these
agencies was the National Security Act
of 1947. Click here for the law itself as
amended through 2007.
Other places where you can get background on the law:
- cia.gov
- state.gov
- fas.org
The was a hugely consequential law that
transformed the relationship between the
US and the rest of the world. The law
established a variety of new institutions
including:
- The National Security Council
- The Department of Defense
- The Joint Chiefs of Staff
- The Central Intelligence Agency
As we know, once the Defense
Department (and a permanent
peacetime military) was created,
the executive branch – and the
President specifically - was in a
better position to commit troops to
action without congressional
authorization.
Prior to the establishment of the
Defense Department Congress
declared war five times:
War of 1812
Mexican American War
Spanish American War
World War I
World War II
Note that these were not the only
times military forces were
authorized during this time.
There was no declaration of war for
the Civil War for example, nor the
range of actions known collectively as
the American Indian Wars.
For more information on the
history of US military operations,
click on these:
- CRS: Instances of Use of US Armed Forces Abroad.
- Timeline of United States military operations
- Military history of the United States
- FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO LIBYA
All that is now required is an
Authorization for the Use of
Military Force, and recently not
even that.
The greater ability of the executive
to direct the military without the
authorization of Congress has
become a matter of concern.
Here’s a lengthy CRS report on the subject:
Congressional Authority to Limit Military Operations.
The Point:
There’s nothing new about the use
of US military power. Though the
scope of that usage has increased.
So has American presence
internationally.
Also, following WW2 another attempt
was made – this time successfully – to
establish an international organization
to attempt to reconcile international
problems so they do not explode into
world wars.
The United Nations (Wikipedia).
Three international meeting during
WW2 led to the establishment of
the UN:
- Tehran Conference
- Dumbarton Oaks Conference
- Yalta Conference
For background on the founding of
the UN, click on these:
- State Department.
- Time Magazine Archive.
- UN.org
- History of the UN.
An ideological split has developed over
American involvement in the United
Nations.
Liberals tend to more willing to participate
within the organization in order to use
diplomacy to solve global problems, while
conservatives see doing so as a violation of
American sovereignty. They are more
supportive of unilateral actions.
Other international organizations were
created at this time as well, but before
detailing what those institutions are,
let’s take a quick look at a major
conference that took place in Bretton
Woods, New Hampshire from July 1 –
22, 1944.
The Bretton Woods Conference.
The expectation at that time was that the
end of WW2 was approaching and that the
allied forces would win. The assumption
among attendees was that one of the
causes of WW2 was the global economic
upheaval of 1930s.
The simple goal of the conference was to
determine how this could be avoided in
the future.
For greater detail on the
conference click on some of these:
State Department.
World Bank.
INET.
Time Magazine.
The conference resulted in the
establishment of a variety of institutions –
most importantly the International
Monetary Fund (Wikipedia) - as well as a
system of money management that would
provide stability in international financial
affairs, and provide effective mechanisms
for dealing with future crises.
The arrangement proved beneficial to
the United States because members
countries were required to tie the
value of their currency to the U.S.
dollar. This is why the U.S. dollar is the
de-facto world currency.
The conference also established the
World Bank
The World Bank
The World Bank is not really a
bank, but instead is “an
international financial institution
that provides loans to developing
countries for capital programs.” –
Wikipedia.
For a collection of articles on
controversies involving the IMF
and the World Bank, click here.
For ongoing news, click here.
After WW2 the U.S. alliance with the
Soviet union broke apart and each
nation formed a pact with other
nations to enhance their security.
The Soviet Union formed the Warsaw
Pact. The U.S. formed NATO
(Wikipedia).
This is an important point. The US and the
Soviet Union had a common enemy in Nazi
Germany and were therefore able to work
together to defeat a mutual enemy.
But once the war was over, the natural
tension between communism and free
market democracies was released. No
common enemy existed to get them to
form an alliance.
This demonstrates that
relationships change.
After the WW2, the world was a
very different place – especially for
the US.
Not only did America’s military
presence around the world
increase, so did its economic and
financial presence.
Here is a question regarding the
strategic use of America’s new
military strength:
What are its goals?
Should security policy – and foreign policy
in general – aspire to lofty ambitions, like
promoting democracy and eradicating
poverty, or simply take into consideration
the pragmatic realities of life and stick to
whatever is necessary to protect the
nation, even at the expense of prosperity
and democracy aboard?
Here are related terms and
concepts:
Realpolitik
Political Realism
Machiavellianism
And a second question:
Should US foreign policy be
formulated and implemented in
consultation with other nations, or
in isolation?
Relevant terms:
Multilateralism
Unilateralism
There are ideological distinctions in
each.
The liberal position is that
American foreign policy should be
established in cooperation with
other nations and should focus
primarily on increasing the well
being of the people of the nations
affected by our policies.
The conservative position is that the U.S.
should establish foreign policy
independently of other nations – or in
consultation with a small handful of allies –
and that the object of the policies should
be focused narrowly on the economic and
security interests of the US. The impact our
policies have on other nations is a
secondary manner.
A quick walk through major events
since the National Security Act
The Cold War
Soon after the end of WW2, the alliance
with the Soviet Union fell apart and a four
decade long stalemate began between it
and the US. While no open conflict
occurred between the two nations- which
is why it was called the Cold War - a large
number of “proxy wars” broke out
between them.
Nations affiliated with each either fought
each other, or fought either the US or the
Soviet Union.
Some nations were affiliated with
Communist China, which complicated
things because China and the Soviet union
– although both communist, had historical
conflicts between them.
On March 5, 1946 Winston
Churchill deliver’s his Iron Curtain
Speech which defined the
relationship between communist
and free world.
The Iron Curtain
The policy of containment was also
developed during the Cold War in
order to halt the spread of
communism. This policy was used
to justify multiple military actions
including Korea and Vietnam.
On August 29, 1949 the Soviet
Union exploded an atomic bomb
for the first time.
This complicated the Cold War because
neither nation wished to directly invade
the other. Each was deterred from doing so
by the mutual assured destruction
doctrine. Thus the proxy wars.
From June 1950 to July 1953 the
US fought – as part of an allied
force – the Korean War against
forces backed up by China and the
Soviet Union.
The war is technically still on, a
cease fire was agreed to in 1953.
In 1953, the CIA organized and led
a coup against the democratically
elected government in Iran and
replaced him with the Shah. This
was called Operation Ajax.
It was the CIA’s first successful
coup. There would be more.
The purpose of the coup was two
fold. First, following WW2 the
Iranian government – and other
Middle East government – began
to side with the Soviets. And
second, the government was in the
process of nationalizing its oil
reserves, which at that point were
controlled by Britain .
Britain had been heavily involved
in the development of oil since
1908, and British companies had
profited heavily from it.
The coup was a way to ensure that
these profits would continue, and
the US nations would get a cut.
Here is something incredibly
awesome:
Operation Ajax: The App.
The Shah would eventually be
overthrown himself in 1979 and
replaced with an Islamic state,
which continues today.
Some suspect the hostility which
led to the current War of Terror
has roots in the 1953 overthrow.
The Cuban Revolution is a bit
complex. The original revolution
was against the dictator Fulgencio
Batista. Only after he was removed
from power did the Cuban
government become communist.
Prior to this Castro met with US
leaders to convince them he was
not a communist.
Relations with Cuba had been
problematic for decades, ever
since the Spanish American war.
Castro’s true intentions were a
subject of great debate, read an
analysis of this period here.
Eventually Eisenhower would
support covert actions against
Castro, and the Bay of Pigs invasion
pushed Castro towards the Soviets.
Conflict culminated with the Cuban
Missile Crisis in October 1962.
Justification for American
involvement in this matter went
back to the Monroe Doctrine
Vietnam
Following the Vietnam War, and a result of the
protests associated with it, the military no
longer drafted people to serve, and instead
became all volunteer, with the requirement that
people register for a potential draft once they
turn 18.
Questions have been raised since then about
whether the burden placed on the public as a
consequence are too narrow. Not all families
bear the burdens associated with combat.
The End of the Cold War
As discussed previously, after the
fall of the Berlin Wall and the end
of the Cold War, the United States
entered a relative period of peace
that coincided with a reduction in
the power of the president.
The US was involved in two conflicts
however. The Persian Gulf War, where
the US participated in an international
effort to remove Saddam Hussein from
Kuwait and lesser efforts to quell the
Yugoslav Wars, which flared up when
the former Yugoslavia broke apart in
1991.
Peacekeeping
One area of conflict that the United States did
not become involved in was the genocide in
Rwanda. Perhaps a million people were killed in
three months while the world sat and watched.
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine was
developed as a consequence. Among other
things it argues that “A state has a responsibility
to protect its population from mass atrocities.”
During the 1990s several isolated
terrorist attacks occurred that
The War on Terror
Bush Doctrine
From the CRS: U.S. Use of
Preemptive Military Force
Cyber Security
Foreign Policy and Public Opinion
For a few items to chew over:
Brookings Institute
Even now, the general public has
the lowest level of support for
foreign policy than for any other
public policy. They commonly over
estimate how much money is spent
on it.