Both the neoconservative and neoliberal transformers are optimists. They view the United States as being in an unchallenged position to bring about fundamental changes in other states that will protect American goals and values and allow them to prosper and become universally accepted. Neoconservatives: People who believe that the United States has a special role to play in world politics; they advocate the unilateral use of force and the pursuit of a value-based foreign policy. Neoliberals: People who believe that cooperation is possible through the creation and management of international institutions, organizations, and regimes.
Do not presume that nations automatically share interests or that cooperation can be easily generated. They do, however, value international institutions and regimes as a way to manage and coordinate expectations among nations They favor foreign aid and economic assistance programs, especially when the aid is made dependent on conditions such as respect for human rights.
Isolationist maintainers have little doubt about the importance of military power and the need to defend American national interests.
President George W. Bush had branded Iraq part of an “axis of evil,” along with North Korea and Iran, in his 2002 State of the Union address. The Bush administration argued that Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction required preemptive military action on the part of the United States. The military operation appeared a spectacular success. On April 9, Baghdad fell, and on May 1, President Bush declared an end to major combat operations. By December 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured. However the early appraisals of success in Iraq and Afghanistan would prove to be premature and overly optimistic. Amid seemingly endless sectarian and ethnic strife, Iraqi political leaders repeatedly failed to meet reestablished deadlines to lay the foundation for a new democratic political order.
We commonly talk of American foreign policy and domestic policy as two separate areas, but the boundary separating domestic and foreign policy is not watertight.
Consider the impact of domestic policy values on American foreign policy by looking at how the U.S. approaches human rights issues at the global level.
Consider the impact of domestic policy values on American foreign policy by looking at how the U.S. approaches human rights issues at the global level.
Between July 2007 and December 2008, about 340 foreign interests representing governments, separatist groups, and for-profit corporations, spent about $87 million on lobbying efforts in the United States. Many foreign governments are deeply concerned about American foreign aid legislation and arms sales. To secure their objectives in these areas, they pursue a two-step lobbying campaign. By listening to and responding to foreign voices, policymakers may ignore or, worse, harm American national interests. This concern is reinforced by periodic revelations of foreign attempts at bribery and espionage. Globalization —the expansion of economic interactions between countries—has added a third concern. Foreign governments and firms might not stop at seeking to influence American political decisions; they might also seek to influence American economic decisions in ways that harm the United States.
Public concerns about the benefits and costs of American foreign policy today run high in two areas: international trade policy and protection of civil liberties Talks sponsored by the WTO on trade liberalization have met with many obstacles due to the persistence of European Union and U.S. agricultural subsidies. Developing countries point to “hypocrisy” when the United States insists that they open their markets via deregulation, privatization, and trade liberalization. Economic downturns heighten concerns about protecting American jobs across the political spectrum. Right-wing and left-wing populists rally against outsourcing and “unfair” foreign economic competition. The U.S. experience in Vietnam suggests that such public support cannot be maintained indefinitely in the absence of visible military success
Public concerns about the benefits and costs of American foreign policy today run high in two areas: international trade policy and protection of civil liberties
Public concerns about the benefits and costs of American foreign policy today run high in two areas: international trade policy and protection of civil liberties
Public opinion can serve as a source of public policy innovation or restrain innovation or serve as a policymaking resource to preserve the status quo. Policymakers tend to regard public opinion as a resource to be mobilized in international conflicts. They want to show foreign leaders that the American public is united behind the president and will demonstrate a “rally’ round the flag” effect. Between the agenda-building and ratification stages, the institutional forces in the executive branch and Congress are the focus of attention.
Often, presidential elections turn out to be less a debate over foreign policy and more a contest about whom the public trusts to achieve those goals. Part of the problem is that the American public tends not to be well informed about foreign policy issues
The third avenue down which the public can travel to express its outlook on foreign policy issues is interest group activity.
The Constitution allocates political power among the president, Congress, and the courts in the formation of foreign policy.
It is the president who announces decisions on war and peace; meets foreign leaders at the White House, at international summit conferences, or in foreign capitals; and signs treaties and international agreements. Presidents do not make foreign policy decisions in isolation.
Secretaries of defense have generally adopted one of two approaches. Generalists will defer to military know-how and see themselves as the military’s representatives in policy deliberations with the president and other foreign affairs bureaucracies. Secretaries who see themselves as experts in defense matters seek to shape and control the Defense Department in accordance with their views. Another longstanding issue involves the conditions under which American military forces should be sent into combat. The Powell Doctrine, named for Colin Powell, calls for the decisive use of American military only when there is clear public support for the use of force and an exit strategy is in place. According to the McNamara Doctrine, named for Robert McNamara, the secretary of defense during much of the Vietnam War, limited and graduated use of military force is permissible when there is a recognized problem demanding a military response, with or without public support.
Viewed over time, presidential-congressional relations in foreign policy have alternated between long stretches of presidential dominance and moments when Congress emerged as an important force, fully capable of frustrating presidential initiatives. In turn, these two factors are influenced by many other considerations, including the party in control of the White House and of the Congress; the size of the majority one party has in the House, the Senate, or in both houses of Congress; the timing of presidential and congressional elections; the popularity of the president and the Congress with the American public; the impact of interest groups and movements on political actors; the goals and skills of the president and the leadership of the Congress; and a host of other political forces.
A broad consensus existed that the Soviet Union and communism were the enemy and that containment —a Cold War strategy that sought to control and encircle the Soviet Union rather than defeat it militarily—was the proper strategy for meeting the threat. Congress saw its role as supporting the president and providing him with the means to carry out his foreign policy.
Exceptions to Congressional affinity with the president were escalation of the Vietnam War with little evidence of success. The second issue on which Congress was active during this period was military strength. The biggest military issue of the time was the “missile gap”—the idea that the Soviet Union was ahead of the United States in missile production, and that the president had not done enough to protect the US.
The War Powers Resolution sought to limit the president’s ability to use military force by requiring that Congress receive formal notification of troop deployment abroad into combat situations and issue its approval. If congressional approval is not granted, the forces must be withdrawn within 60 days. Congress has never exercised its power to withdraw military forces.
Congress often seeks to assert its influence by attaching amendments to foreign policy legislation that place conditions on the president’s actions. It may also target foreign aid and military assistance money for certain countries Congressional budgetary powers are equally blunt and hard to use with finesse, in part because of the committee structure within Congress Several factors limit the impact of congressional oversight. One is the small political payoff for a great investment of time. Constituent work and shaping of domestic legislation are much more valuable for reelection purposes. A second limiting factor is organization: More than 80 committees have some kind of jurisdiction over the sprawling Department of Homeland Security. Third, most congressional oversight of foreign policy tends to be after the fact. Defenders see congressional input as vital to keeping the government in touch with the national mood and ensuring long-term public support for American foreign policy
When there is a conflict between state laws and treaties on a subject involving American foreign policy, the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that treaties take precedence over state laws The Supreme Court has consistently supported the president in conflicts with Congress. The Supreme Court has been reluctant to grant the government broad powers that may restrict American civil liberties and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
Most experts now argue that we are seeing the emergence of yet another form of terrorism. Instead of being highly centralized and directed by a single leader, such as bin Laden, or a single source, such as al-Qaeda, terrorist groups now operate independently, linked by an anti-Western ideology and the Internet. A fundamental reality of the nuclear age is that the knowledge needed to build nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is readily available. Until recently, the U.S. position was that the spread of weapons of mass destruction needed to be stopped because they were dangerous weapons in their own right. The Bush administration advanced a new strategic doctrine of preemption —a means of dealing with terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by striking first in self-defense. Preemption is controversial for several reasons. First, containment and deterrence may be more effective against some enemies. Deterrence threatens a state-based enemy with swift and overwhelming retaliation for actions such as nuclear attacks or acts of aggression. Second, preemption cannot be carried out very often. A third concern is morality.
How should the US respond to the growing economic power of other nations? As of 2010, China remains the world’s largest recipient of foreign direct investment. Because many technologies being traded globally today can be used for both commercial and military applications, the stronger China grows economically, the more powerful it is likely to become militarily. As it grows economically and militarily, the political influence of this communist country will increase in Asia and around the world A second, related question deals with the future of foreign aid. How much aid should be given? For what purposes should aid be rendered
Defined by the United Nations as “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnic, racial, or religious group,” genocide is the most extreme category of human rights violation. No clear-cut policy toward genocide has been enunciated in the United States, the United Nations, or anywhere else in the world. Two dilemmas face any attempt to formulate policies against genocide. The first is that the pace of killing sometimes is much faster than the ability of countries to respond. Secondly, knowing that the U.S. and others will respond to genocide may actually encourage some to provoke violence against their people in hopes of involving outside forces. One of the greatest tragedies of modern warfare is that the killing and maiming of people often continues after the fighting ends as a result of buried land mines. The United States has played an ambiguous role in the land mine issue. Human trafficking is now the third-largest illegal business on earth, following drug and weapons trafficking. Since the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000, the U.S. is required to cut off most non-humanitarian foreign aid to countries not making an effort to eliminate this problem. Environmental issues are a major national security issue for the United States. The relationship between environmental degradation and emerging security risks has become more apparent as the scale and intensity of environmental problems have evolved. Other important issues include child labor, the status of women, poverty, and access to health care.
