THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S INTEREST TOWARD THE REFUSAL OF OTTAWA TREATY

Transcription

1 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S INTEREST TOWARD THE REFUSAL OF OTTAWA TREATY THESIS Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Sarjana Sastra Degree in English Department Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University by ASTRI SINTA DEWI C ENGLISH DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LETTERS AND FINE ARTS SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY SURAKARTA 2010 i

2 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S INTEREST TOWARD THE REFUSAL OF OTTAWA TREATY by ASTRI SINTA DEWI C Approved to be examined before the Boards of Examiners Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University Thesis Consultant Dra. Nani Sukarni, M.S. NIP Head of English Department Dr. Djatmika, M.A. NIP ii

3 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S INTEREST TOWARD THE REFUSAL OF OTTAWA TREATY by ASTRI SINTA DEWI C Accepted and examined by the Boards of Examiners Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts, Sebelas Maret University On September 2 nd, 2010 Position Name Signature Chair Person Drs. Hendarto Rahardjo, M.A. NIP ( ) Secretary Dra. Susilorini, M.A. NIP ( ) First Examiner Dra. Nani Sukarni, M.S. NIP ( ) Second Examiner Dra. Endang Sri Astuti, M.S. NIP ( ) Dean of Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University Drs. Sudarno, M.A. NIP iii

4 PRONOUNCEMENT NAME NIM : ASTRI SINTA DEWI : C Stated whole-heartedly that the thesis entitled The United States of America s Interest toward the Refusal of Ottawa Treaty is originally made by the researcher. It is neither a plagiarism, nor made by others. The things related to the other people s work are written in quotation and included within bibliography. If it is then proved that the researcher cheats, the researcher is ready to take the responsibility. Surakarta, July 2010 The Researcher Astri Sinta Dewi iv

5 MOTTOS Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing --Helen Keller-- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail -- Ralph Waldo Emerson-- Life doesn't require that we be the best, b only that we try our best -- H. Jackson Brown-- v

6 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated with love and gratitude: To my beloved Sister and Parents vi

7 ACKNOWLEDGMENT First of all, I would like to give thanks to Allah SWT, The Almighty God and The Lord of the universe for His blessing and His guidance so that I can finish my thesis. Secondly, I do realize that this success would not be achieved without the encouragement and contribution from the people around me. Therefore, in this special opportunity, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who have directly or indirectly given me valuable support and assistance in accomplishing the thesis. 1. Drs. Sudarno, M.A., The Dean of Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts, for approving this research. 2. Dr. Djatmika, M.A., as The Head of English Department, for giving me permission to conduct the research. 3. Dra. Nani Sukarni, M.S, Thank you very much for everything, Mam. Thank you for your guidance and your frequent advice. 4. Yuyun Kusdianto, S.S, my academic consultant, for giving attendance during my study in English Department. 5. Fitria Akhmerti, S.S, M.A, You are really an idol for me, Mam. Thanks for sparing the time just to listen my words. 6. Thanks to all lecturers of English Department, for giving me valuable guidance and knowledge. vii

8 7. My lovely mother and father, for giving me a great motivation to graduate as soon as possible. Thanks for the unstoppable and the extraordinary love for me. You re really a great parent. 8. My brother Ismail, When will you get married, Bro? My little brother Yusuf, Don t be a spoiled boy!! You both have contrasting characters. It s unique, Bro. Ibnu, let s make a big leap for the future. 9. The little but happy family: Mama Diyah Iskandar, You inspire me much, Sis. Papa Budi Irianto, Thanks for the laptop, Bro! I can t finish my thesis without it. My dearly loved nephew Rayhan Bintang Ramadan, I love you so much^^. 10. My Genius S.F Lukfianka Sanjaya P, Thanks for everything. I ll be right here waiting for you. Let s reach the dreams together!! 11. Best of the best friend in my life: Nia (thanks for listening all my stories), Vian (thanks for always being there if I need help), Dhee (thanks for the attention you send from far), Fera (thanks for always reminding me to do this thesis soon), Joe (thanks for the solidarity so we may graduate together, Bro ) 12. My second family, the great team of LPIA SOLO: Ms.Diyah (you re a cute and smart manager), Ms.Wahyu & Ms.Anti (thanks for allowing me to know the experience of teaching), Ms.Diana (you give me much new information), Ms.Heni, Ms.Shanti & Mr.Taufan (Keep yourself on fire to get the new projects), Ms.Ayu (Have you found someone?), viii

9 Mr.To (thanks for the tea) and all the LPIA teachers and students (thanks for this colorful life we share together). Bravo L.P.I.A!!! 13. All the Amstuders (United States of American Studies fellow): Sony semangat, Ratih Dwi, Yogi the journalist, Nunik Fujiyama gakoo, Dida, Puspa meong, Kiki Adi chayo, Kiki Mut, Fauzi the critic. Thanks for the knowledge you all share for me. 14. The dwellers of ED: The Linguistic fellow (Sari, Arif, Ratih Wulan, Chemitz, Melon, Hesti, Lilis, Irena, Yuni, Dini, Ratih, Fitria, Maya, Nafis, Eva, Winda, Anggi). The Literature fellow (Galih, Adwin, Nurin, Us, Imeh). The Translation fellow (Intan, Arum, Mb moniq, Woro, Andika, Ongko, Alwi, Bebek, Burhan, Ima, Lambang, Lia, Elis, Ony, Ebsi, Arih, etc). Thanks for the unforgettable moment we passed through together for about 4 years. Last but not least, I would like to say thanks to other people whom I cannot mention one by one. I realize that this thesis is still far from being perfect. Therefore, I whole-heartedly welcome any suggestions, comments, and criticisms from anyone who has concern in improving this thesis. And finally, I hope this thesis will be useful for the readers. Surakarta, April 2010 The Researcher Astri Sinta Dewi ix

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title... i The Approval of the Thesis Consultant... ii The Approval of the Broad of Examiners... iii Pronouncement... iv Mottos... v Dedication... vi Acknowledgment... vii Table of Contents... xi Abstract... xii CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION A. Background of Study... 1 B. Research Question... 4 C. Scope of Study... 4 D. Objective of the Study... 4 E. Benefit of the Study.4 F. Theoretical Approach... 5 G. Research Methodology 6 H. Thesis Organization.7 CHAPTER II : LITERATURE REVIEW A. Ottawa Treaty... 9 B. American Foreign Policy C. Ultimate Decision Unit CHAPTER III : ANALYSIS A. The Type of Ultimate Decision Unit in the U.S Refusal of Ottawa Treaty x

11 B. Bill Clinton Political Values...41 C. Congress-President Relationship during Bill Clinton s Term. 48 D. United States of America Foreign Policy Decision on Landmines Issues 73 CHAPTER IV : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion...78 B. Suggestion 80 BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES xi

12 ABSTRACT Astri Sinta Dewi. C THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S INTEREST TOWARD THE REFUSAL OF OTTAWA TREATY. English Department. Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts. Sebelas Maret University. Surakarta This research took a treaty namely Ottawa Treaty. The objectives of this research were to find out the reasons why United States of America refused to sign Ottawa treaty. This research used a qualitative one with library research as the method meaning that this research used collected data in analyzing the research question by presenting, collaborating, and analyzing them. The data source of the research was a treaty with its official name Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction. The main data of this research was the text of the treaty, while the supporting data was taken from books, magazines, newspapers, articles, journals, and the internet sources that had significances in helping to answer the research question. The research used historical, socio-political, foreign policy approaches and ultimate decision unit theories to answer why United States of America refused to sign Ottawa Treaty. Derived from the analysis, it was found that the interests why the U.S refused Ottawa Treaty are the significance of landmines militarily, securing South Korea as the U.S ally, and American economic interest. It was further analyzed by using the ultimate decision unit theory to know the actors behind the decision making process and factors contribute to it. The type of ultimate decision unit in this decision making process is multiple autonomous actors. The interest of the U.S in refusing Ottawa Treaty was analyzed through the perspective of President and Congress as the authorized decision makers in the case of the treaty. President Bill Clinton maintains the United States of America s security and economy, while, Congress maintains humanitarian reason and the U.S responsibility as superpower. The relationship among those multiple autonomous actors is included as a zero sum. To legitimate his decision on the case of his refusal toward Ottawa treaty, Bill Clinton issued his PDD/NSC-64 on Humanitarian Demining. By issuing PDD/NSC-64, it shows that there is another type of ultimate decision unit namely single group. xii

13 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of Study The United States of America as a superpower surely has superiority in many aspects in this world. Its superiority has made itself second to no other countries so that many countries make it as a role model and follow its lead. However, in doing so many countries often find out that she betrays its own principles it offers to follow. It can be seen from the way the U.S takes action in some foreign policy such as in Kyoto Protocol, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Montreal Protocol. In all of those cases, the U.S is so controversial. The U.S itself which initiates the treaty but it often ends with the U.S refusal toward the treaty. Thus, it can be seen a pattern in American foreign policy, that is paradox of hegemony. On the one side as a super power the U.S wants to give good examples or ideals to the rest of the world. On the other side, the ideals that the U.S brought to the world are often in conflict with its national interests. As a result, the U.S usually ends up in promoting something and neglecting, circumventing, or refusing it in the end. In the case of Ottawa Treaty, the researcher also sees this pattern. The U.S was the biggest supporter in eliminating AP landmine, yet it was also the biggest producer and user of this landmine. Consequently, the U.S refused to ratify the treaty. 1

14 2 Anti-personnel (AP) landmine is a dangerous weapon possessing distinct characteristic different from other types of weapon. Once an AP landmine planted, no body would be able to locate its position, even the planter. According to the Ottawa treaty, "Anti-personnel mine" means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons. International Committee of the Red Cross (2005) explained that Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped. AP landmine can injure even kill anyone touching or making contact with it without discriminating whether the person is soldier, civilian, man, woman, adult, or even kid. The threat of landmine still exists even many years after it has been planted. Most of the victims of AP landmine are civilians. The U.S. State Department estimated, landmines killed or injured one civilian worldwide every twenty-two minutes-totaling nearly twenty-six thousand victims per year (as cited in O'Connor, 2000). The injuries it causes vary depends on the effect of the landmine. AP landmine with explosive effect usually causes the victim losing legs while AP landmine with fragmental effect causes worse and various injuries to the victim. It is estimated that there are 100 million AP landmine planted all over the world. Thus, many countries in the world try to eliminate landmine in this world. It is for these humanitarian purposes that this Ottawa Treaty, formally named as Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, formed. The treaty imposes

15 3 obligations to its members. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances: to use anti-personnel mines; to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, antipersonnel mines; to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention. Each State Party should also undertake to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in accordance with the provisions of this Convention. When several countries gather in Ottawa, Canada, in 1997 to sign the treaty, the U.S refused to sign. As of 2007, the treaty has been signed by 158 countries including all members of NATO except Turkey. Thirty-seven states, including the People's Republic of China, India, Russia and the United States, however, did not take part in the Convention. It is estimated that there are about million landmines planted all over the world. International Campaign to Ban Landmines (2004) found the total stock of landmine of six countries alone that do not ratify the treaty including Russia, China and the U.S has reached 180 million landmines. This is quite controversial as well as surprising since the U.S was formerly the most active country in campaigning landmine banning and in landmine destruction programs. The former president of America, Bill Clinton was also the first president asking the world to gather and form a treaty for the eradication of landmine, Bill Clinton (1996) stated "I ask all nations to join with us and conclude an agreement to reduce the number and availability of those mines".

16 4 In making foreign policy decision, surely, the U.S will consider its national interest for the sake of the country. Thus, there must be interest behind America s decisions. In this analysis, the researcher wants to analyze further what America s interest toward the refusal of Ottawa treaty. B. Research Question The research question this paper tries to answer is: Why did the U.S refuse to sign the Ottawa Treaty? C. Scope of Study To avoid too broad analysis since there are so many reasons behind the U.S refusal on Ottawa treaty, this research will only focus on issues related to the research questions and the theory applied. D. Objectives of the Study The objective of the study is to know the U.S considerations behind its refusal on Ottawa Treaty. E. Benefit of the Study This research is hopefully beneficial to: 1. The Students of English Department a. To deepen the understanding about American policy in international affairs.

17 5 b. To give view to the readers about the new field in American Studies that can be used as a medium to conduct research, American policy in International affairs. 2. Other researchers To give contribution for other researchers who want to conduct a research on the related field. F. Theoretical Approach In seeing the phenomenon, the researcher will apply interdisciplinary approaches so that the research can cover significant aspects of the phenomenon. Historical approach will be applied to know and understand historical point of view of the U.S as well as international situation and condition during the time the phenomenon happened. It will reveal the relationship of the U.S with other countries especially South Korea during the Treaty ratification so that it can be seen the red line with its refusal. Historical approach is closely related with political science and historical science, thus it is also imperative to apply socio-political approach along with historical approach. Isjwara (1982) stated that socio-political approach, branch of sociology which analyzes processes within sociological frame of reference orienting its attention particularly to the dynamic of political behavior, as it is reflected by various social processes, such as cooperation, competition, conflict, etc ( p. 82).

18 6 As the case is about foreign policy, it is imperative then to employ the American foreign policy approach in answering or analyzing the research question. American foreign policy, as Hastedt points out, can not be parted from the global setting, foreign policy undertakings, the American national style, and the ability to learn from the past. In foreign policy, there must be the actors as the policy makers or the political structure of the government that identifies, decides and implements foreign policy. Thus, this research also employs decision unit approach as it is essential to know the actors behind a certain foreign policy decision and factors contributing to reaching of the decision. Decision unit approach proposes three types of decisions unit: predominant leader, single group, and multiple autonomous actors. By using these approaches, the researcher can determine who are responsible of a certain foreign policy decision and what factors should be considered in analyzing foreign policy. G. Research Methodology This research is a qualitative one with library research as the method meaning that this research will use collected data in analyzing the research question by presenting, collaborating, and analyzing them. Research can also be qualitative, that is, it can describe events, persons, and so forth scientifically without the use of numerical data. Blaxter, Hughes, Tight (1996) argued, it tended to focus on exploring, in as much detail as possible, smaller number of instances or examples which are seen as being interesting or illuminating, and aims to achieve depth rather than breadth (p. 60). This research employs the study of documents

19 7 technique meaning that this research will use collected data in analyzing the research question by presenting, collaborating, and analyzing them. All research projects involve, to a greater or lesser extent, the use and analysis of document. Researchers are expected to read, understand and critically analyze the writings of others, whether fellow researchers, practitioners, or policy-makers. Blaxter et al. (1996) argued, Considerable attention has, therefore, already been given to the techniques of reading for research (p. 150). The main data of this research will be the text of the treaty, while the supporting data will be taken from books, magazines, newspapers, articles, journals, and the internet sources that have significances in helping to answer the research question. H. Thesis Organization This thesis will be divided into four chapters namely introduction, literature review, analysis, and conclusion and recommendation. The arrangement of this thesis and the division of each chapter are as follow: The first chapter will cover the background of the research, scope of study, research question, objectives of the study, benefits of the study, theoretical approach, research methodology, and thesis organization. The second chapter will cover literature review that is divided into three sub chapters, Ottawa Treaty, American Foreign Policy, and Ultimate Decision Unit. The third chapter will encompass the analysis by applying the theories to the case. There will be four sub chapters. The first subchapter analyzes the Ultimate Decision Unit in American Foreign Policy in the case of Ottawa Treaty. The

20 8 second subchapter discusses the political values of Bill Clinton. The third subchapter discusses the key control variable of the ultimate decision unit in the case Ottawa Treaty. It covers the relationship between the President and the Congress that also gives great contribution in the making of decision. The last subchapter covers the final decision of American foreign policy taken in the issue of Ottawa Treaty and the reasons behind the decision. The fourth chapter will state the conclusion and recommendation.

21 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW A. Ottawa Treaty The failure of Ottawa process initiated by the Government of Canada following the First Review Conference for the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons which was unable to prohibit or restrict on anti-personnel mines forces for the formulation of Ottawa treaty. It went through the long process since there were other conventions before it which also discussed the same case. The last conference was the "Oslo Diplomatic Conference on a Total Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines" taking place from 1-18 September At the closing session, 89 States seriously adopted the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction or called as Ottawa Treaty. Based on the official name of Ottawa treaty, it is clear enough that this treaty prohibits the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personal landmines. It is obliged to the state parties within 4 years to destroy stockpiles and to clear their own territories from landmines within 10 years. The governments should help the poorer countries and assist the mine victims. This treaty only covers the issue of anti-personnel landmines. Mixed mines, anti-tank mines, remote controlled claymore mines, anti-handling devices (booby-traps) and other "static" explosive devices against people are not within the treaty. When the treaty was open for signature on 1997, there were 133 countries that signed. As of February 9

22 , only 156 countries have ratified the treaty and superpowers like China, USA, India and Russia have not signed this treaty. The state parties have arranged some articles dealing with landmine, and as a final point, there are 22 articles that should be obeyed by its members. Each article has explained in clear started from the first article which talks about the general obligation and the 22 nd article about its authentic text. In addition, there is an annual meeting for treaty member states to review the convention held in different countries around the world. The meeting provides a forum to report what has been accomplished, what additional actions needed, and whether they need a help or not. The 10 th annual meeting is held in Cartagena, Colombia on 29 November-4 December. The latest report in May 2009 shows there have been 156 states signed the treaty but thirty seven have not ratified. Definitely, there must be significant reasons why the treaty is powerfully struggled. The initiation of Ottawa Treaty is with the sole purpose of humanitarian action toward the victim of landmines. Although landmine is used in war and it is concentrated on the enemy s soldiers but the fact landmines continue to cause untold suffering around the world to the civilians. When the war ends these weapons remain to hurt or kill the local populations. Moreover, it is possible for the people to be killed or injured by landmines long years after the war. According to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (2001), Landmines continue to maim or kill approximately 15,000 to 20,000 people each year. Landmines account for more than deaths and injuries a year, many times farmers, every third victim is a child. An

23 11 estimated million mines are still buried in 45 countries, making large areas of agricultural land unusable (in Cambodia estimated 40%, in Angola estimated 90%; source:un), having a daily impact on the population, threatening life, health and income. Landmines that are buried for short term military interest produce long-term consequences. In many parts of the world landmines are not marked with warning sign since it can not be detected. They are marked with blood. Landmines have seized the living of communities. For people in a mined area or territories with ongoing conflict, the condition is even worse they can not do their activities freely because the landmine is surrounding and threatening them. The fight against landmines is a fight for the rights of people to live free from fear, in a safe and conducive environment. Started from these facts, thus, United Nations supports the formulation of Ottawa Treaty. It is not only UN which keeps fighting on the treaty but there are also Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and numerous other non governmental organizations around the world. Mine action is any actions done to clear the landmines while the process of removing landmines called as demining. Those are what the state parties, NGO, and UN do to clear the landmine. For instance, UN Mine Action Coordination Center organizes 13 separate UN agencies, programs, departments and funds provide various mine-action services in 41 countries or territories. Their duties are not just to remove the landmines from the mined area. It includes

24 12 a range of activities aimed at protecting people from danger, helping victims become self-sufficient and active members of their communities, advocating for a world free from the threat of landmines, and helping countries destroy stockpiled landmines, ensuring they may never be used by anyone. Basically, landmine is explosive device that is designed to explode when triggered by pressure or a tripwire. Compared to others, it is included as a cheap, effective weapon and easy to make. It is typically placed in the ground by hand, but there are also mechanical minelayers that can plow the earth and drop and burry mines at specific intervals. It is aimed to disable any person or vehicle that comes into contact with it by an explosion or fragments released at high speeds. It was developed during World War I and used as defensive weapon, to protect strategic areas such as borders, camps or important bridges and to restrict the movement of another force. Another of those, it also has a key characteristic that it is designed to maim rather than kill. The logic reason is because it will spend more resources to take care the injured soldiers than the dead soldiers in a battlefield. Even though, there are 350 varieties of mines, they can be divided into two categories. They are anti-personnel (AP) mines and anti-tank (AT) mines. Both of them have the same basic function, but there are also some other differences between them. Anti-personnel mine is designed specifically to explode when there is a thing that steps or pressures on it such as footstep of a soldiers or person. It has a low cost, compact size and efficiency, thus it can be easily spread across borders to protect countries during conflict. Meanwhile, anti-tank mine is designed much larger and contain several times more explosive than AP mine. It

25 13 is developed during World War I since the development of tank itself at that time. It has enough explosive material to destroy a tank or truck and kill people in or around the vehicle. It needs more pressure for AT mine to detonate. Bonsor explained, Most anti-tank mines required an applied pressure of pounds (158 kg) to pounds (338 kg) in order to detonate. Most tanks and other military vehicles apply that kind of pressure. Considering how enthusiasm the world in concerning this case shows that this issue on landmines is really essential. On the other hand, it seems that this praiseworthy purpose on humanitarian action is not taken as something important to concern for United States (U.S). It can be seen from the decision of the U.S by not signing the Ottawa Treaty. Otherwise, it can be said as refusing the treaty. The U.S criticizes that Ottawa Treaty has weaknesses. It does not, for instance, include anti-tank mines in the articles. According to the U.S, anti-tank mine is more dangerous and powerful than the permitted mine (AP mine). Following that reasons, US promises to end using landmines if possible alternatives have been developed. US believes that although the U.S does not join the treaty but still gives big contributions on mine action by working actively and closely with more than sixty non-governmental organizations and citizens groups in its publicprivate partnership program and helping to expand awareness of this issue. The U.S Department of States claimed: Since 1993, the United States had provided in excess of $1 billion dollars to nearly 50 mine-affected countries for humanitarian mine removal, minerisk education, assistance to mine survivors, mine surveys, research and

26 14 development on better ways to find and clear mines, and training for non- U.S. mine action managers so that they can run their nation's programs more effectively. All of those reasons stated by US can be simply an alibi. It is really ironic in view of the fact that President Clinton was the first world leader who urged for the global ban on landmines. It gives us an idea about the paradox of the U.S in a situation in which it operates at the center of the Humanitarian Mine Action but it does not support the Ottawa Treaty. In the interview with the Ottawa Citizen, President Clinton acknowledged that US had made a big mistake by not signing the Ottawa Treaty. He blamed the failure of the treaty to pass on the Congress doorstep (as cited in Stohl, 2000). United States foreign policy is certainly a mixture of the interests, objectives, and actions of the government officials and the persons and group outside government who have some parts in the foreign policy making process. It is no doubt, then, the U.S foreign policy is often full of inconsistencies and contradictions. In this analysis, the researcher tries to analyze further what the interests toward its refusal on the next chapter. Dealing with this, it is needed to know about the general characteristics of foreign policy. B. American Foreign Policy The U.S is a super power country which positions itself to be the first in the world in the field of economics, politics, and military. These superiorities give U.S the higher bargaining power than other countries that is useful for the U.S to achieve its objectives. Certainly, every nation in the world can not live alone

27 15 without cooperating with other countries since they must have different conditions and requirements. Therefore, among them should fit out each others under the provision of regulations. This condition, then, emerges the existence of foreign policy. Generally, foreign policy can be defined as the strategy to determine the relationships, policies, and actions of certain state with or toward other states and international entities. As Hastedt (2000) points out in his explanation, he states that foreign policy is about choices of the goals and values people want to realize and the types of threats they wish to be protected against. Foreign policy is also about cost. It is about how much people willing to pay in order to achieve their goals and what type of sacrifices they are willing to make (p. 95). In other words, foreign policy is considered as the method of certain country to find its best strategy that will be used as a nation s rule in relation to other countries in order to achieve its national interest. The foreign policy existence depends on the policy makers actions in deciding the course of action chosen and the method employed to achieve the objective as a result of peaceful cooperation or exploitation. There are some factors that influence the contemporary foreign policy namely national interest, national objective, geopolitical and national history and tradition. According to Burns, Peltason, and Cronin, (1952), Foreign policy is designed to protect and promote its national interest, security, ideological goals and economic prosperity (p. 449). National interest is one of the key terms to characterize the objectives of a nation when foreign policy is moved to one direction or another. It is dynamic and tends to change. As a result, the government officials and groups outside the

28 16 government must be able to evaluate the rapid changes occurring in today s world condition and find suitable ways to benefit from them. Another of that reason, it is very useful one which policy makers should never forget as it helps to place foreign as well as domestic policy in the framework of national policy. There will be broad objectives and national interests in United States but national security, the economic growth or prosperity and democracy are the important ones that become part of the national interest as the objectives of a nation. The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State, are "to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community. In line with this explanation, Harrington in points out: national interest involves not only military security and the American economy but also a defense of American values (as cited in Palmer and Perkins, 1969, p. 344). After knowing that national interest is the main driving force behind American foreign policy, it is imperative to know how an issue gets attention and later becomes the focus of discussion that will eventually result in the birth of a foreign policy decision. An issue usually comes into attention of an actor when there is an opportunity or threat within the issue that can benefit or endanger its national interest. The issue or phenomenon faced by American government here can be called as problem that should be solved by them as it probably poses opportunity, threat or both of them so that it is necessary to understand the concept of problem

29 17 in foreign policy. In this case, Hermann (1978) asserts three terms namely problem, problem recognition, and problem identification or definition (p. 269). 1. Foreign Policy Problem a. Problem A problem exists when there is a recognized discrepancy or imbalance between a preferred state of affairs and the present or possible future state of affairs (Hermann, 1978). There is close relation between problems and goals. Five implications are given to the term problem. The first, problem demands the actors to be responsive of the existing goals because it helps the actors to define the problems exist easily. If the goals can not be defined well, there will not be any indicated problems. In addition, the goals also can be identified and treated through the developing situations. Most governments have certain basic goals such as national security, national interest, ideological goals, and economic prosperity. The second implication is that the problems are relative. It means that actors may have different goals and as a result, they also give different response in identifying the problems. Thus, it is possible for the actors to judge whether a problem for one will also be problem for them or not. Hermann also points out that somewhat less frequently acknowledged is the idea that different departments, agencies, or bureaus within one government may have different even competing goals and, hence, different problems (Hermann, 1978). The third implication is that in identifying discrepancy or imbalance, an actor must be capable in comprehending the current conditions and the potential

30 18 developments that will affect the goals. Therefore, problem solver must be accurate in recognizing the circumstances and its changes. The fourth implication involves the concept of discrepancy. There are various kinds of discrepancy. Those can be between the goals and the existing conditions or state of affairs or between the potential opportunities and the actions to bring about its realization. The last implication states that there will not be any action to the problem before it has been recognized by the problem solvers which have authority to act in solving the problem. There will be no decision made regarding that problem, if the problem-solvers, government officials with the authority to act, do not recognize the problem. In other words, the recognition is taken as the awareness of the authorized actors to decide what actions to reduce the discrepancy are. b. Problem Recognition Another basic concept dealing with actor awareness of discrepancy is problem recognition. It becomes the first analytic step for coping with problem since basically individuals or organizations have an ability of selective attention and perception in stimuli environments. Hermann points out that both individuals and organizations normally operate in environments so rich of stimuli that they cannot possibly attend to all of them, so they systematically screen out many signals perhaps most and select only a few to which they give conscious attention (Hermann, 1978). However, problem recognition is more difficult for complex organizations than individuals. For individuals, they have contained both ability of problem

31 19 recognition and problem solving while for complex organizations as in foreign affairs separate the ability of recognition and decisions or problem solving. There will be different agencies which manage both abilities and functions. For example, it is the political officers in embassy, the military assistance officer in the field, or the intelligence analysts who are the first to aware or recognize the problem but it is not them who have the authority to resolve the problem as they have to report to the organizational superiors to get the supportive measures. In short, organizational problem recognition occurs when the awareness of problems arrives at the organization with adequate authority to make decision on the appropriate action and to initiate determined action. c. Problem Definition According to Hermann, problem definition is meant the meaning or interpretation on that problem solvers attach to a problem (Hermann, 1978). This is the follow-up step after a problem is recognized by interpreting the recognized problem. Thus, whenever the problem is recognized, there should be an interpretation on the defined situation. Meaning or interpretation is subjective since different observers may define differently on the same problem. However, multiple interpretation is not only caused by different observers (individuals, organizations, or governments), but, the same group s definition of the problem also can be various through time since problem is dynamic and can change anytime. Thus, definition and recognition should be separated each other. Problem definition can be acute in foreign policy when cross cultural differences, governmental motivations, and conflicting messages make a discovered foreign

32 20 policy problem subject to alternative definitions. Considerable attention is needed in monitoring or defining the potential problem in foreign affairs. Further, Hermann argues that to cover this capability of monitoring and defining problem, it can be obtained by examining the situational characteristics namely threat, opportunity, complexity, awareness and time. They influence the possibility of a problem being detected and the method in which it will be interpreted. 2. Situational Characteristics in Foreign Policy a. Threat Threats consist of future damage or obstruction to the desired object, activity or situations. A problem stimulus in certain situations will be easier to be recognized by individuals or organizations if it threatens to some valued goal of the entity. It is because they have a concern for the survival of their valued goals. Therefore, the more a situation appears to threaten such goals, the more it is to be recognized. The more widely shared the goal(s) that is threatened and the greater the magnitude of the threat, the less likely are the major differences in problem definition to occur. However, threatening situation can create difficulties in the accurate observation of changes in the definition of a problem. While, there will be differences in the definition of a problem if the decision maker or problem solver has different point of view on the subject of the goals that are threatened or the amount of threat is not great, and consequently it makes the decisions difficult to achieve. b. Opportunity

33 21 Opportunity can be meant as the chance to move toward some goals. In the area of foreign policy, the opportunity refers to the chance to move toward some foreign policy goals that involve the occasion to influence over or to change in some foreign country, external entity, or part of the natural environment. If the policy makers who have adequate authority to get the chance are overloaded and there is no relationship that can be made between new opportunities and problems they are dealing with as the result the chance may be lost even though the subordinates within the department have recognized the significance of the situation. Whereas threats can increase the organizational consensus in defining a problem, opportunities have the reverse effect. The recognition of a situation which has an opportunity to exercise influence will create competition among the agencies since there are multiple agencies in foreign policy sector with different missions and its occasional overlaps. Each will tend to have its own decision over the problem in order to be chosen as the action agency. Each agency possibly will consider the other s proposed initiative as reducing the possibility of realizing opportunities that it finds. c. Complexity Complexity may occur since, in fact, foreign situations contain great uncertainty and incomplete information. Individuals will find its difficulties in defining problems in a complex situation. However, it will be easier for organization although there may be greater difficulty in recognizing complex stimuli in extremely complex situation. It is because an organization will also develop its activities including the experts and create integrative capability to cope

34 22 more effectively with such potential situation. Discovering complex problem does not ensure its interpretation since there can be a significant pause between the discovery of the problem and its accepted definition. Thus, complexity makes more difficult to eliminate of one or more alternative definitions. It tends to be talked and debated among the Executive branch, Congress and various nongovernmental groups over the most accurate interpretation or definition. However, complexity is expected to make problem definition more demanding for organization. d. Awareness Some policy makers have expected some situations before they occur, whereas other situations can occur unexpectedly. Situations vary in the degree of foreknowledge or prior awareness available to agencies that monitor foreign affair since it is anticipated only from the general character not the specific detail. Problem that are anticipated have an improved chance of being detected when they occur. On the contrary, unexpected events are less likely to be detected unless they also have some other quality such as threat that encourages recognition. There are various factors that promote expectancy such as regularity of occurrence, sequence trend or ordered events. Problem that are anticipated are also likely to be interpreted a priori as well. Problem recognition and problem definition are usually simultaneous. The problems that are anticipated are less likely to be debated. This simultaneity of problem recognition and problem definition can create serious problem in policy making if the present situation differs from what was expected. Even, the problem

35 23 situation that do not conform the forecast may be ignored or misinterpreted. If the occurrences of the situation have been predicted, an organization has a tendency to interpret stimuli that occur as the expected development as long as it has some of the anticipated qualities. e. Time Some situations do not have visible indication that they, including the configuration of actors and objects that involve them, are possible to change in the predictable future in a manner unfavorable to the perceiving governmental representatives. On the other hand, other situations contain identifiable characteristics that suggest the present situation is possible to change rapidly. Certain situations need immediate response as they have a deadline or ultimatum falls. Short decision time reduces the individual s probability of recognizing a problem. Foreign policy organizations live in environment in which important problem often have short fuses, therefore, they attempt to build capability to avoid the possibility that some problems will be missed. The problem of recognition depends on the organizational slack. It means that if the policy makers who can authorize action are involved with several critical problems at the same time, and then a new problem with short decision time probably will not be noted until it has already been transformed. In the discussion of problem, problem recognition and problem definition, it is found that decision makers or the actors in government play important role in deciding foreign policy. In relation to this, Margaret and Charles Hermann and

36 24 Joe Hagan state the existence of ultimate decision unit to understand the structure that will shape the government policy. The United States decision to refuse the Ottawa Treaty was part of the U.S foreign policy which has certain objectives and interests. Unquestionably, it was made based on many considerations. The process of decision making of foreign policy in American government involves several domestic institutions such as president, president adviser, congress and several departments. Therefore, it is necessary to find out the decisions making process and the characteristics of the U.S foreign policy in order to understand its strategic interest. 3. Treaty-Making Power The agreement between states requires the existence of treaties or convention, executive agreements, or simple legislation (acts or joint resolution of Congress). Pratt (1955) explained that there are five steps that must be achieved before a treaty becomes effective: 1. Negotiation and signing by agents such as the Secretary of the State and the ambassador of the country. 2. Legislative approval 3. Ratification 4. Exchange of ratifications 5. Proclamation (p. 257) For United States, legislative approval means the giving by advice and consent of Senate by a vote of at least two-third majority of the senators that are present. It

37 25 is because among the three branches, executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch, share an equal power as the existence of check and balance system. Thus, there will not be any superior power between them as every action made must be under supervision of the two other branches. In relation to this case, treaty making, the Constitution gives the power to President to make treaties by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Besides, to become an actual party to the convention or treaty (known as a state party) also needs the approval of Senate. Hastedt (2000) stated that the president nominates the negotiators, issues instruction to them, submits the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent, and if its consent is given, he makes a decision on whether or not to ratify the treaty and make it into law (p. 162). The first consideration in approval process is review of the treaty by the current administration, to see if it is consistent with United States policies, interest and law. Originally, Senate was functioned to be a kind of advisory commission, making recommendations to the President throughout the treaty making process and on the all aspect of the negotiation. As a result, the President and the Congress are often involved in a hard debate to conduct on certain US foreign policies. 4. Background Factors in the Making of U.S Foreign Policy a. Global Setting The making of U.S foreign policy is influenced by the international environment. Otherwise, it can be said as global setting. It refers to the ways in which the international system affects U.S foreign policy and how policy makers

38 26 have struggled with defining the American national interest. During the past decade global politics which is always about power and the struggle for power has changed. Huntington (1999) further argued that it is due to the global structure of power which is important in shaping the global setting. In Cold War, the global structure of power is basically bipolar. A bipolar system has two superpowers, U.S and Soviet Union. The relations between them are central to international politics. Each superpower dominates a coalition of allied states and competes with the other superpower for influence among nonaligned countries. After the fall of the Soviet Unions, there is now only one superpower. Yet, it does not mean that the world is unipolar. A unipolar system only has one superpower, no significant major power, and many minor powers. As a result, the superpower could effectively resolve international issues alone and no combination of other states that prevent it from doing so. Another global structure of power is multipolar system. It is a system which has several major powers of comparable strength that cooperate and compete with each other in shifting pattern. In this kind of system a coalition of major states is necessary to resolve important international issues. However, Samuel P Huntington argues that these three models do not fit the contemporary international politics. It is now the time of a uni-multipolar system. This system has one superpower exists but there are also several major powers. The action by the single superpower is needed in deciding the key international issues but always with some combinations of other states. Though, the single superpower can veto action on the key issues by the combination of other states. It is surely United States which has domination in every domain of power such as

39 27 economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural or simply it can be called as superpower. While, major regional powers are on the second level. They are great in the areas of the world but they are not able to expand their interests and capabilities as globally as United States. These major regional powers include the German- French condominium in Europe, Russia in Eurasia, China and potentially Japan in East Asia, India in South Asia, Iran in Southwest Asia, Brazil in Latin America, and South Africa and Nigeria in Africa. At the third level are secondary regional powers whose interest often conflict with the major regional states. Huntington mentions some countries that are included in these categories such as Britain in relation to German-French combination, Ukraine in relation to Russia, Japan in relation to China, South Korea in relation to Japan, Pakistan in relation to India, Saudi Arabia in relation to Iran, and Argentina in relation to Brazil. In a unipolar system, the superpower is capable of maintaining its dominance over the minor states for a long time until it is weakened by internal or external decay. Whereas, in a multipolar system, each states will compete to get the position as the single dominant power like unipolar system but the other major states will act to prevent that from happening. In bipolar system, each superpower compete each other to create unipolar system using armed force, but it will be a disaster for both enabled bipolarity until one state could not continue the rivalry. Thus, many countries in this system welcomed United States as their protector against the other superpower that does not conform to their ideologies.

40 28 Each of those actors has an interest in maintaining the system. Yet, it is not for uni-multipolar system because each actor or state in this system has its own preferences. The United States or the superpower will position itself as the hegemon and often act as in unipolar system. On the other hand, the major powers would prefer a multipolar system in which they could pursue their interest without any disruption or interference from the stronger superpower. The world s only super power is automatically a threat to other major powers. They do not want the United States messing around in regions where their interests are predominant (Huntington, 1999). b. American National Style In pursuing their interest, surely, the U.S has its own styles or methods in gaining them. The American national style is not frozen in place since it tends to change its direction. The development of the ideas has guided the U.S policy makers in taking some actions. It does not talk about good or bad. It refers to a descriptive statement about how policy makers tend to think about foreign policy problems. Hasted (2000) argued that the sources of American national style are found in the conditions under which earlier generations of American policy makers operated and the ideas that guided their thinking (p. 33). These have been the pattern of American political thought. Its foreign policy is frequently discussed in terms of a tension between two opposing general foreign policy orientations. They are isolationism and internationalism. From the isolationist, American national interests are best preserved by quitting the world or limiting and avoiding the involvement from

41 29 events elsewhere. It can be seen in the implementation of Monroe Doctrine, the refusal to join the League of Nations, etc. On the contrary, the internationalist perspective believes that in protecting and promoting American national interest requires involvement in world affairs since the United States can not escape the world. The global depression of the 1930s, rise of Hitler s power, the outbreak of World War II are the proof to the internationalist that isolationism is no longer relevant. The American national style has three patterns namely unilateralism, moral pragmatism, and legalism. The first is unilateralism which means the predisposition to act alone. It also means exceptionalism for the U.S which is a great state having a great power so that it can act alone in facing problem. The U.S will act unilaterally no matter there is support from United Nation or other countries or not when it feels that there is a threat to its national interests. No significant thing nations or United Nation can do about it. The second pattern is the moral pragmatism which tells that there is a standard of morality nation should refer in behaving in international affairs. In American perspective, state behavior can be judged by moral standards and that American morality provides the universal standard for making those judgments. The U.S sets up the morality about the good things or the bad things, what should or should not be done. The third pattern is legalism which means in employing its foreign policy the U.S puts forward a statement of principle and then asks other states to join or adhere to it either by signing a treaty or by giving their support for the principle.

42 30 Hastedt argues that these three patterns produce four consequences for the overall conduct of the U.S foreign policy. The first consequence is a tendency to win the war and lose the peace. This is the American tendency to see the war and peace in polar opposites. In time of peace, foreign policy objective is accomplished by exercising reason, discussion and trade. While, in time of war, power is the appropriate tool. The second consequence is the existence of double standard in judging the behavior of states. The righteousness and the universality of its values and predisposed to act unilaterally often make United States have a reverse actions. United States may judge any activities to be highly controversial although those are considered by most states to be normal part of the world affairs. The third is ambivalence toward diplomacy. Diplomacy is valued as the process by which states peacefully resolve their disputes. The product of diplomacy is viewed with great uncertainty. If the U.S position is morally correct one, it does not need to compromise with others. The fourth consequence is impatience. When Americans considers that its position is correct in both moral and technical sense, it tends to get the quick results. They are impatient and may get frustrated when the positive results are not coming soon. c. Learning from the Past Foreign Policy Undertaking Some foreign policy problems are new but it may have the same or similar issues or implications as the previous case. Thus, some policy makers often learn from the past in treating the new problem which has the same pattern. When an event is taken as a possible source of lessons, policy makers make calculations. In treating the problem the policy makers make judgments about what part that is the

43 31 indicators and what part that is the unimportant ones. There are three lessons that are most often learned by policy makers. The first is to expect to see more of the same. The second is to expect the continuity in the behavior of other actors. The last is to avoid the failed policy and to repeat the success policy. It means that not all aspects of the past are possible to take as the source of lessons. The U.S will select the most effective and leave the ineffective ones. In other words, it can be said that by learning from the past foreign policy undertaking it can provide a look at the range of lesson used by foreign policy maker in making decisions. Besides, it also gives a better understanding for the failure and the success of the previous administration foreign policy undertaking. Therefore, the government can avoid the possible failure for the new foreign policy. C. Ultimate Decision Unit The nature of problem affects this ultimate decision unit. Thus, the highest political authorities will be part of the ultimate decision unit for issues of vital importance to a country. In a contemporary government, policy normally involves multiple bureaucratic organizations. The problems are passed among many different groups within one agency, across agency, or among interagency groups. The issues also move between parts of government such as between the executive and legislative branches. Margaret and Charles Hermann (1989), American scholars, have initiated the decision units approach as a tool to identify the foreign

44 32 policy decision makers in government for a particular issue and to understand how they influence a nation s behavior in international affairs. Although we recognize that numerous domestic and international factors can and do influence foreign policy behavior, these influences must be channeled through the political structure of government that identifies, decides, and implements foreign policy. Within this structure is a set of authorities with the ability to commit the resources of the society and with respect to a particular problem, with the authority to make a decision that cannot be readily reversed. We call this set of authorities the ultimate decision unit, Some factors influence in understanding the results of the decision making process but the making of foreign policy also involves actors or it can be said as decision makers. The final outcome of the foreign policy does not only depend on the structure in decision unit itself but also factors outside the decision that will influence the decision. Margaret and Charles Hermann divide the decision unit into three types. They are predominant leaders, single groups, and multiple autonomous actors. It will help to determine whether the decision unit affects foreign policy through the pre-existing knowledge, beliefs, and style of those who are included in the unit or factor outside the unit should be considered. Each of the decision unit type has its own control variables, end points and status. The key control variable for each of the three types can be seen in the table below:

45 33 Taken from: Margaret and Charles Hermann (1989) The status of these key control variables determines how other elements enter into their decision for that unit. The end points for each of the control variables labeled A indicate condition for which the explanation of foreign policy is on the nature of the decision unit itself. The internal factors of the unit shape the decision and the decision process is self-contained within the unit. While, the end points for each of the control variables labeled B show the condition in which the unit is externally influenceable. In other, outside pressures on its decisionmaking process give a significant effect on the outcome. As we shall see in describing the three types of decision units and the key control variables, these alternative condition lead to different decision making processes and affect the nature of the foreign policy behavior of a government (Margaret and Charles Hermann, 1989). a. Predominant Leader Predominant leader means that a single individual has the power to make choice for the government. Even if the others are allowed to give alternative decisions, their points of view are no longer relevant to the political outcome. The