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

DefenseDiplomacy

Trade (legal and illegal)Finance

ImmigrationEnvironmentalism

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:

SecurityProsperity

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.

DevelopmentDiplomacy

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 1812Mexican American WarSpanish American War

World War IWorld 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:

RealpolitikPolitical Realism

Machiavellianism

And a second question:

Should US foreign policy be formulated and implemented in

consultation with other nations, or in isolation?

Relevant terms:

MultilateralismUnilateralism

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.