Ch 20 Synopsis

Ch 20 – Global Policy

Synopsis:
This chapter examines the players, structures, and primary issues that define the making of foreign policy in the U.S.. The decisions made in this process can be understood through the conflicts of freedom versus order and freedom versus equality: in the case of foreign policy, though, those conflicts are between those who favor freedom v. those who favor maintaining the traditional order of the nation-state system; and those who favor freedom versus those who favor government action to enhance the equality of people in all nations. The history of U.S. foreign policy and current global policy challenges can be understood within this framework.

The Constitution specifies that relations with other nations should primarily be the responsibility of two groups of actors; the executive branch and the legislative branch. The president, who has become the primary foreign policy authority, derives his authority from a few provisions –- including his role as commander-in-chief –that deal with the subject of foreign relations. Presidents have used these provisions and other pieces of legislation, Supreme Court decisions, and precedent, to expand their authority.

The other primary actor in the foreign policymaking arena is Congress. Congress has many powers that can be used in foreign policy, though the Constitution never specifically mentions that term. Both the power to legislate and the power of the purse give Congress the ability to promote or prohibit international involvement. The Senate has specific powers---including the power to ratify treaties---that make it a particularly important force in foreign policymaking.

There are many other actors who take part in making foreign policy: particularly important are the Department of State; Department of Defense; the National Security Council; and the CIA and other parts of the bureaucracy that have intelligence capabilities. Each of these organizations advises the president and Congress on matters concerning national security and other U.S. interests. In addition, many other agencies pursue foreign policy goals as part of their missions, and there is an array of government corporations, independent agencies, and quasi-governmental organizations that also participate in making foreign policy.

A brief review of the history of foreign policymaking reveals that the U.S. has gradually progressed from an isolationist to a regional to a global perspective in its foreign policy. Immediately after WWII, American foreign policy was dominated by the requirements of the Cold War and the containment of Soviet expansionism. A real turning point in Cold War foreign policy resulted from America’s unsuccessful involvement in the Vietnam War. Americans disagreed passionately both about what to do in Vietnam and how to do it. The Nixon Doctrine, however, inspired a dramatic departure from the past by advocating détente, a foreign policy aimed at reducing tensions between East and West. This policy represented a significant change. President Carter’s foreign policy emphasized human rights, and can be seen as reflecting “Vietnam syndrome”, a crisis of confidence about America’s role in the world. President Reagan had no such crisis, and undertook a major defense buildup as a means of rolling back perceived Soviet expansionism in Central America and elsewhere. When the Cold War ended in 1989, the conditions of foreign policymaking changed dramatically. As President Clinton’s policy of enlargement and engagement illustrates, it is now much more difficult to develop strong guidelines about U.S. involvement in situations around the world.

The most pressing international issues are global policy issues: these are intermestic problems that require global action. Solutions to these problems often require domestic policies and practices to be subject to international regulation. Global policymaking presents challenges to the very concept of national sovereignty. A review of the global policy areas of investment and trade, human rights policy and foreign aid, and environmental policy reveals both the need for and challenges to effective policymaking in these areas.

In a democracy, it would seem that public opinion could have a dramatic impact on foreign policy decisions. According to the majoritarian model of democracy, public opinion should be the fundamental guide for foreign policy makers. The problem with this view is that the public is not very interested in foreign policy, and most of those who are have views that are not very specific. The pluralist model of democracy, by contrast, recognizes that people are likely to learn about foreign policy from the leaders of groups they belong to, and so legitimizes the presence of these groups. Pluralism also recognizes and allows for the presence of foreign firms and governments as interest groups. Though the influence of these groups varies depending on the issue at hand, international lobbying efforts are most effective when they deal with non-crisis issues that are of little importance to the public at-large. Given the public’s relative disinterest in these matters, foreign policy, and now global policy, will tend to be made by opinion leaders and competing interest groups.