The Making of U.S. Foreign Policy

IRPG 883, Lecture 2

OUTLINE

(1)Revision(2)The U.S. Constitution and Foreign (3)Separation of Powers?(4)Who Makes Foreign Policy? (5)Democracy and Foreign Policy

(1) Revision History and 9/11 U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 – The Bush

Doctrine Global War on terror Unilateralism Preemption/preventive war Emphasis on a military might beyond

challenge U.S. Foreign policy After the Bush

Doctrine? Continuity and Discontinuity? Benign Hegemon or Empire?

(2) The U.S. Constitution and Foreign PolicyThe drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 was intimately bound up with the states’ individual and collective relationship with foreign powersIt was recognized that the ‘Articles of Confederation’ (1781), which sought to unite the rebel colonies in the immediate aftermath of the War of Independence, were too weak

The U.S. Constitution and Foreign Policy

They were too weak in respect of:Overcoming the centrifugal tendencies of the Union which, in the longer term, were bound to pull the states apart thus undermining the Union – especially economic protectionismDealing effectively with foreign powers, foreign commerce and questions of war and peace. This jeopardized the collective security of the new Republic and its constituent parts

The U.S. Constitution and Foreign Policy

Thus, the designers of the Constitution, amongst other things, sought to:

Strengthen the central government while preserving the liberty of individual citizens and the autonomy of statesProvide an outline of the institutions of governance, their areas of jurisdiction and forms of representation

The U.S. Constitution and Foreign Policy

Of particular importance here was the role of the Senate, which would be composed of two Senators from each state, regardless of the size of the population of that state (allayed fear of smaller states, and of slave states)Originally, it was the Senate that was going to be given jurisdiction over foreign policy (because of competing state interests in this sphere)

The U.S. Constitution and Foreign Policy

Was shifted to the Presidency in recognition that the President was the sole national office in government, and hence had greater plausibility in terms of claiming to represent the USA’s ‘national interest’But their powers would be overseen and circumscribed by Congress

(3) Foreign Policy and the Separation of Powers

The distance along Pennsylvania Avenue that separates the Capital building (pictured) and the Judiciary (not pictured) from the White House is a metaphor for the separation of powers between the legislature, judiciary and the executive

Foreign Policy and the Separation of Powers

This supposed separation of powers, however, is a little misleading It is more accurate to say that there are separate institutions that share powers in particular spheresAfter all, a separation would entail the executive having jurisdiction in one area and the legislature in anotherInstead, both the executive and the legislature share power in most spheres

Foreign Policy and the Separation of Powers

This blurring or over-lapping of powers can give rise to ‘divided government’, where the executive and the legislature pull in different directions, where Congress frustrates the will of the President and vice versa This is particularly acute where the majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate are in the opposing party to the PresidentFor example, after the 1994 Congressional elections the Republican Party controlled both the Senate and the HOR, thereby frustrating many of President Clinton’s initiatives

Foreign Policy and the Separation of Powers

President’s Power Congress’s Power

War Power Commander in Chief

Declaring War

Treaties Negotiate Treaties Ratify Treaties (by two thirds Senate Majority)

Appointments Nominate Govt. officials

Confirm appointments (Senate)

Foreign Commerce

No explicit powers ‘Regulate foreign commerce’

General Powers Executive veto Power of the purse

Foreign Policy and the Separation of Powers

As well as these divided powers frustrating policy initiatives, the five-stage process through which foreign policy legislation must pass in Congress is also a constraint on swift action

The writing of a billHearing and amendments in relevant committeesVotes on the floor of Senate and HORReconciliation of differences between Senate and HOR billPresident Signs bill/Appropriations process

(4) Who Makes Foreign Policy?

PresidentAdvisers

National Security Council

BureaucracyDefense, State, CIA, Treasury

Joint Chiefs

CongressIndividuals

Congressional Committees

ConstituentsInterest Groups

MediaPublic Opinion

Who Makes Foreign Policy?In addition to the limits imposed by divided government, differences also emerge within the executive agencies themselvesThis is largely conditioned by the fact that different agencies depend upon different interests and pursue different objectivesFor example, the Commerce and Agriculture departments, with their principle interest in promoting trade, frequently clash with the Departments of Defense and State e.g., over China

Who Makes Foreign Policy?Differences also occur within the principal foreign policy branchesFor example, the State Department resisted the enthusiasms of the NSC and Defense Department for going to war with IraqColin Powell dubbed the head officials of the NSC and Department of Defense ‘chicken hawks’

Who Makes Foreign Policy?While the various bureaucratic agencies have much autonomy, this is always circumscribed by other agencies, by public opinion, and by the political pressure brought to bear by various interest/lobby groupsThe latter can be defined as “formal organizations of people who share a common outlook or social circumstance and who band together in the hope of influencing government policy” (Berman & Murphy [1996] Approaching Democracy).

Who Makes Foreign Policy?

Several different types of foreign policy interest/lobby group can be identified

Economic groups (MNCs, Trade Unions, peak business bodies)Identity Groups (Cuban-Americans, Irish Americans, American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee etc.)Foreign Governments (more than 1000 lobbyists in Washington representing foreign governments)

State and Local Governments

Who Makes Foreign Policy?On this final point, it must be remembered that the constituencies of Senators and Congressmen are state basedConsequently, they are pressured by perceived interests of their statesFor example, Rockwell decided to outsource construction of the B1 bomber to sub-contractors in 48 states, which ensured that its production would go ahead

(5) Democracy and Foreign Policy

Despite the continuing importance of Congress in the determination of outcomes in domestic politics, it would be fair to say that over time increasing powers have been concentrated in the hands of the Executive when it comes to foreign policyHas led some to talk about an ‘Imperial Presidency’ (e.g., Arthur Schlesinger Jr. 1974).

Democracy and Foreign Policy

The basic claim here is that the checks on Presidential prerogatives have been diluted to such an extent that democratic principles are threatened

Democracy and Foreign Policy

Thus, despite the formalities of the Constitution, Presidents do not typically need a Declaration of War by Congress in order to wage warFurthermore, the agencies that they oversee often operate in great secrecy, hence evading scrutiny and accountabilityDecisions are made by a tiny non-accountable elite and are often presented as done deals

Democracy and Foreign PolicyDefenders of the Commander in Chief’s prerogatives argue that:

Foreign policy-making calls for great expertise and information, and only the President and the Agencies of the executive have this expertise and informationThe nation’s security demands decisiveness on the part of its leaders, and that Congress is not well suited to thisIn order to preserve a democratic system in the long-term, we sometimes have to forgo democratic principles in the short term

Democracy and Foreign Policy

As a result, foreign policy and areas of national security should be exempted from some of the norms that are applicable in domestic politics

Rights against arbitrary arrest and arbitrary government intrusionRight to privacyPresumption of innocence etc.

Democracy and Foreign Policy

Indeed, it was precisely these sort of exemptions to due process that were embodied in the Patriot Act I & IIIt was also the ‘threat to national security’ that was invoked to justify war again Iraq

Democracy and Foreign PolicyIt is now widely recognized that Congress and the American people were misled in order to secure its authorization for a ‘blank cheque’ to use military force against Iraq Yet while many people would bridle against this abuse of power, they would not necessarily see similar cases of Congress being mis-led in the same problematic light (e.g., Roosevelt 1939-41)What is the relevant difference?