actions: deployment of troops in iraq, deployment of humanitarian troops, treaty, decision to shift the federal budget targets: private citizens, or

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "actions: deployment of troops in iraq, deployment of humanitarian troops, treaty, decision to shift the federal budget targets: private citizens, or"

Kelly Shields
5 years ago
Views:

1 actions: deployment of troops in iraq, deployment of humanitarian troops, treaty, decision to shift the federal budget targets: private citizens, or orgs outside the us, people of other countries rather than countries-- can get in a lot of hot water. shape target beliefs thinking about reactions often designed to communicate to other gov t our interests influence others to avoid crashes in foreign politics (think about your decision to drive) shape target capabilities think of capabilities as relative balance of power(?)- leverage each has in a negotiation process. american foreign policy is geared to undermine other country to gain leverage. limit soviet power to limit soviet influence. shape interests shaping goals of another state shape other nation s political goals in relation to the US s? shape actions implementation of foreign policy/key FP bureaucratic agencies executive branch and the bureaucracy state department manages passports, trade agreements, brokering peace deals defense manages the armed forces of the US, headed by a civilian, not a military person. oversees and works closely with joint chiefs of staff, responsibility over the key instruments over foreign policy (military). make credible coercive threats. Chuck hagel treasury (federal reserve) manage and coordinate monetary policies between us and other states. unique in strong domestic responsibilities as well. engaged in borrowing operations, people loaning us money are other nations (china, saudi arabia), borrowing function has increased relation with foreign policy. CIA/National Intelligence national intelligence- after 9/11 to centralize the intelligence gathering of US. we know more if we have good intelligence. suzan rice- heads national security council- first to brief the pres. not subject to senate confirmation. samantha power- american ambassador to UN- philosophical, what is national interest? why is it significant? preference about outcomes: examples security protect the physical safety of our citizens; military; think of aggression of a rival state to one of its neighbors; russia to ukraine-- security interest, we

2 are threatened by russian intervention. doesn t have to be just the state. think al queda, ISIS taking territory in Syria and Iraq. economic prosperity at stake; broad economic interest, free market system; discrete and concrete in specific countries-- furthering interest of american businesses what s good for GM is good for the US ideals values. values we hold dear. dimensions: what determines preferences: multiple dimensions level of analysis: states, bureaucracies, subnational actors (economic, ethnic, special interest) content of preferences: material vs. ideational are we interested in military power or economic oil power in middle east? institutions aggregating preferences institutions help to induce national interest; what the us should do. Intro to ethical reasoning ISIS- is an evil organization; foreign policy- uses language to condemn trying to do in this clas: raise awareness improve ethical reasoning skills develop your own position move beyond gut feeling about ethics; what it means for something to be right or wrong tools to achieve goals highlight moral dimensions of USFP decisions consider different approaches and range of questions press you to stake your position aspects of practical ethics utilitarian approach- which alternative maximizes the most good for the most people? (big about numbers 1000 v ) common good- which course of action advance the common good of the community? virtue approach- which action develops moral virtues emphasized by a society? rights approach- which course of action best respects the rights of an individual? (alternative to utilitarian, harming one person is contrary to ethical approach, doesn t take into consideration to number harmed or number benefitted) fairness approach- which action does not show unjustified favoritism? range of ethical choices ethically prohibited - you re causing harm, like murder, theft, violence. if not prohibited, then permissible.

3 nato during the summit is reaffirming commitment to these countries in eastern europe; drawing a line in the sand; Defining Grand Strategy why does an attack by terrorists in afghanistan lead to the american invasion of iraq? intellectual architecture or worldview that provides the foundation for foreign policy these are big ideas (e.g. containment, democracy promotion, counter nuclear proliferation) what do we value? what do we want to promote around the world? how do we optimize these means and relationships? grand strategy at the top of pyramid of US policy, then foreign policy (state dept), then and. grand strategy is an ideology; a kin to domestic partisanship, not necessarily correlate with domestic partisanship; have an important political quality to them; international equivalent to domestic debates over partisanship; critical to communication and domestic political support political debates draw on some underlying theories, but they are also political statements; designed with domestic political context in mind; rallying support for grand strategy. some mapping with partisanship, but not perfect rand paul- support decrease in foreign aid budget, isolationist, person can have good intentions, but ideology can cause misery. john mccain- consistent supporter of military force for democracy abroad; need military action in syria and iraq, put special forces on the ground, and train military forces, ISIS is a threat to the US. Chuck Hagel defines similarly. Components of Grand Strategy related to but not identical to partisanship- republicans can differ in their ideologies (paul vs mccain); strategies can cross party lines, can unite, can split. more abstract than specific policy because it is meant to apply to a variety of situations tends to be concrete enough to come in several identifiable forms; 4 main visions of grand strategy: isolationism, internationalism, primacy, selective engagement best understood in relation to one another; relative rather than absolute; mean different things during different time periods. vary along several important dimensions 1st dimension: geographic scope of interest: regional or global unilateralism v. multilateralism unilateralism: go it alone, act on its own power and responsibility, not adhere to alliance multilateralism: stressed the need to work with partners, internat l orgs hard v. soft power strategy tends to emphasize different forms of power depending on threat hard power- military force, predominant form of power soft power- economic levers, political clout, cultural influence, central problem to be addressed: nuclear revolution and the threat of great power war? keeping the world at a safe distance? (china- primacy)

4 preventing the rise of a rival power? maintaining a hospitable security and economic global environment 1 DEFINING national interest isolationism- emphasize physical security of the homeland others will emphasize more expansive; security of allies, economic well being of the country, global free-market system; protection of american ideals (democracy, freedom) 2 DEFINING global threats to U.S. 2 ways; 1 is the scope of the threat. isolationists- relatively narrow; what are the forces that can actually attack the us? others have a more expansive view; what can threaten the us, but allies, and interest around the world? 2nd way- identity of the threat- what is the character of the threatening state, group of state, transnational ideology, that is threatening us security? e.g. during cold war communism, after cold war al queda, other terrorist orgs, what is their long and short term goals? what are their means? have to understand your enemy 3 CHOOSING means 1 - classic choice, debate between unilateralism and multilateralism 2 - debate about means, is a debate about emphasis of hard or soft power Discussion of Obama West Point Speech does or doesn t have a grand strategy? yes he does- concern about moral concerns; moral concerns, basic human dignity, central part of american security; america s moral purpose and realist ideas of american security principal threat is still terrorism; other threats aren t as bad as other times means- lots of cooperation and lots of multilateralism, build new relationships. (unless there s an attack on the US. then it s unilateralism) means- economic sanctions for russian (soft power), Isolationism- keeping the world at a distance goal is to reduce foreign interventions and avoid future commitments logic: american threats abroad are minimal foreign conflicts can infect domestic politics foreign intervention itself can create a threat not only are these threats none of our business, but they think we make things worse. america first: scarce resources should be devoted to domestic problems use resources wisely; military adventures can go awry; none of these improve our nat l security critique: isolation allows problems to fester

5 stems from us being relatively safe from outside world; we have weak neighbors to threaten a military invasion on the us; we enjoy security provided by the oceans; it is costly to launch an amphibious attack-- stopping power of water; very difficult for another country to launch a successful invasion of the US; have nuclear weapons- would run the risk of being inialiated by return attack; not only are threats outside our borders small, but focusing on those small threats would make those matters worse. historical examples: george washington- farewell address- set against wars associated with french revolution. worried about factionalism, war in europe is going to threaten political stability in us. be aware of foreign entanglements. stay out of the war in europe s- significant change following wilson; league of nations; eliminate the problem of war; rely on private economic influence rather than political-military power; tax cuts, demobilization and limited political involvement in europe; pullback because of WWI isolationism during and after cold war waxed and waned with perceived threats and levels of us global power much less isolationism during the Cold War- expansive threat rebirth of isolationalism after collapse of ussr as part of peace dividend partial retreat again with emergence of perceived global threat of Al Queda return of neo-isolationism in current climate? Helibrun Reading is isolation a viable strategy in the world? no. retreat slowly to be stable; viable domestically? increasingly yes. he wants to draw a distinction between strategic engagement and isolationism. Selective Engagement (offshore balancing) mindful of the limits of american power goal is to better align capacity and interest. both are limited logic: american interest abroad are still global but not unconstrained american power has limits us must prioritize its interest and bring them in line with capacity us must partner with regional powers critique: offshoring balancing difficult to execute balancing behavior- prevent concentration of power- political, economic, and military; threatening to us, could threaten interest; block the growth of power of other states; ex: containment to prevent expansion of power in soviet union; contain its influence outside its borders; we don t want WWIII. wants to maintain great powers; over past 70 years make sure no state dominates the eurasian area; selective engagers are hesitant to engage in smaller powers, unless they threaten to engage larger powers (WWII) ex: Eisenhower- pushback to truman; wanted to reduce america s presence in europe; wanted nato allies to take on more responsibility, wanted to reduce costs, was

6 concerned about a rise of isolationism, if too much military spending, there would be domestic backlash. George H. W. Bush- domestic realist; cautious about collapse of soviet; Wrap up and Tuesday (9/9) preview 9/9/14- Grand Strategy II TMFPQ immigration- obama promises to do something about immigration, then delays; risky strategy; obama has put electoral politics above principal. obama is playing domestic politics protecting democrats in senate races erosion of the political center? ISIS/ISIL has territorial ambitions, they have things to lose- control over resources. also recent nato summit showed agreement something needs to be done with respect to isis- adds legitimacy to military action; differs from iraq war; stay tuned- address tomorrow night. Key Elements of liberal internationalism (LI) multilateral means to achieve a certain environment liberal = (not the same as partisan politics) rights, reaction against authoritarian monarchies; both dems and republicans are liberal in the classic european sense- both have a broad agreement on freedoms, liberty, capitalism. liberal internationalism - aims for democratic something, global free market system LI sees american national interest and its security threats as global and expansive. differentiating factor against primacy or selective engagement: security is collective in nature; not achieved by individual states. multilateral over unilateral. hardly ever go it alone. always strive to work with partners/allies emphasized values, liberal values, like democracy, free trade more than other strategies something seen as contextual; protection of human rights, safer and more secure world for the US; values and security should reinforce each other idealism more than realism. often calls for extensive us military and economic action; activist; projection of american power and military conflict. use military power and international institutions to pursue a liberal international order american threats abroad are global security is collective and achieved through multilateral organizations and alliances security is best achieved in a world based on western values; free markets, democratic regimes, protecting human rights

7 american intervention (w/ military and economic power) used to establish an american-led liberal international order critique: LI can be too expansive and perceived as imperialism historical examples of LI Wilson and LI (exemplar) champions collective security system through league of nations willing to use military power and organizations national self-determination (anti-imperialism) democracy free trade open navigation of the sea (for trade, challenges british naval hegemony) self-determination; europe not big fans of wilson; 14 points speech- supports democracy, free trade, open navigation of the sea; also designed to challenge the hegemony of the british navy on the oceans problems envisioned as an evolutionary system how enforce the system? legally obligated to intervene if borders changed; not prepared to defend with military or economic securing domestic support through congress (sound familiar?) killed it as an effective institution debate: president obama and LI (this is what he s classified as probs) see support for multilateral cooperation in west point speech still supportive of democracy promotion // backed off this some from bush admin. willing to use military force pulls back from bush grand strategy of primacy by withdrawing from iraq (?) and drawing down (?) in afghanistan posen disagrees is obama a liberal internationalist? debate critique about obama as a LI, that questions obama s faith in america s ability to remake??? obama is too much of a realist to commit us military forces; he s no woodrow wilson, no bush. key elements of primacy focused on establishing and maintaining american hegemony keeping down strong rivals like LI and SE, sees national interests and threats as global unlike LI and SE (which both seek to work multilateral) is skeptical of multilateralism, prefers to work unilaterally, do it alone. relies on america s preponderant military and economic power premium on military power (hard power over soft power) realism over idealism;

8 can have democracy motivations goal is to use unilateral means to establish american hegemony over all rivals logic: american interests abroad are global security is achieved unilaterally through preponderant american power reliance on military power can be market by emphasis from a worldview that is primarily realist (material) or idealist (values) critique: primacy can lead to overreach and isolation historical examples of primacy primacy and the bush (43) admin clear willingness to use military force skepticism of international institutions democracy promotion preserve military dominance over peers dramatic post 9/11 buildup shock of 9/11 important candidate bush as offshore balancer debate: posen vs. books, et al. no diff. between primacy and LI, about liberal hegemony Posen article really pretty uniform since cold war; bipartisan grand strategy fusing LI and primacy liberal hegemony bush and obama aren t that different, and clinton; tried to secure a hegemonic position for the US; sees this as a problem. bas outcomes us needs to pull back form interventionist foreign policy american activism has prompted anti-american balancing (other countries, China and Russia allies now) started unending conflict with nationalism enabled allies to shirk on their own defense don t spend enough because us will bail them out. A restrained american foreign policy should: focus on: preventing a prowerful rival, fighting terrosim, and stopping nucler proliferation reduce global alliance commitments avoid counterinsurgency reduce the size of the military Brooks, et. al advocates of restraint overstate costs: hard to calculate real economic costs, but US wealthy and still small % of GDP countries do not balance against US do not get pulled into unnecessary wars; us alliances constrain

9 forget real benefits: keep the peace by deterring bids for regional hegemony military dominance yields economic benefits foster multilateral issues on new issues discussion: fukuyama and neo-conservatism written at a low point in iraqi war what is neo-conservatism? politically started on far left, moved to center during followin social turmoil of 1960 s; moved right during cater and reagan original hero: leon trotsky (anti-stalin, stalin had perverted communist revolution) were anti-capitalism; anti-liberal in US, critiques of FDR anti-stalin views foundation for strong hardline pushed rightward by social upheaval of 1960 s deplored rise cultural relativism; blaming of us; attack on universities by student radicals opposed affirmative action gov t intervention can t expect all the unintended consequences; war in iraq hypothetical to this cold war- shaped by wohlstetter nuclear balance dictate, not stable; push arms race big supporters of reagan and his characterization of soviet union as evil empire; rollback (not containment) frustration in post embrace vision of american primacy that fuses american power with pursuit of liberal ideals use american power to promote liberalism/democracy around the world us should pursue moral foreign policy (supported clinton in haiti, bosnia) 9/11- Executive Authority and Foreign Policy Discussion on 9/11 what changed: shift to terrorists and state harboring terrorists as chief threat wasn t a replacement to containment after the cold war changes in public opinion: debate over trade-off between security and liberty increased domestic security measures due to vulnerability increased presidential authority The constitution, executive authority and foreign policy the president shall be commander in chief of the army of the us, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the us (article 2, sect 2)

10 can make treaties, appoint ambassadors, broad executive powers (pre-dominance over foreign policy) Executive authority over foreign policy is anchored in 2 articles of the constitution 1. president as commander in chief 2. executive power of president did the framers intend for the Foreign Policy to be part of the executive powers? yes. Separation of powers and foreign policy it is important to understand the logic behind splitting the war- making powers between the president and congress. Article I, Section 8: congress shall have the power to declare war, to raise and support armies logic: part of Madison s separation of powers and checks and balances system important differences between presidential and parliamentary systems: separate elections, separate constituencies pres- nat l constituency, congress- local fixed terms, no vote of confidence for a president National Security bureaucracy and bureaucratic politics (intra-branch politics) Managing the foreign policy bureaucracy (I) - president and national security council pres and national security advisor have huge role to play in coordinating all the executive branch agencies state dept, defense dept, CIA, NDI, NSA, treasury, commerce, homeland security think of the rules of the road, just need to get everyone on the same page problems when interagency coordination fails: 9/11 play the central coordinating role; preventing people or groups from getting in eachothers way; groups (state, defense, etc) don t have conflicting goals, just need to take turns to prevent against bad outcomes. rule: driving on right hands side of road, ensuring bureaucracies communicate with each other. examples: dif. agencies work at cross purposes with each other- Sadam Hussein s invasion of Kuwait; given dif. messages on how US might respond; dick cheney- commitment to defend Kuwait, we will respond militarily; pete williams- backed away from that commitment, blamed a journalist for taking cheney s words liberally; state dept- reaffirm support of Kuwait; later state dept spokesman- created opposite statement; within hours, hussein requests meeting with ambassador, ambassador says we have no opinion. completely different signals. months of 9/11- different agencies were identifying clues; if there were coordination they could have put US on higher alert levels; arrest of guy in minnesota, was taking flight simulator courses; failure to share information director of national intelligence Managing the foreign policy bureaucracy (II) different agency heads possess dif. policy goals or different ideas

CISS Analysis on. Obama s Foreign Policy: An Analysis. CISS Team

CISS Analysis on. Obama s Foreign Policy: An Analysis. CISS Team CISS Analysis on Obama s Foreign Policy: An Analysis CISS Team Introduction President Obama on 28 th May 2014, in a major policy speech at West Point, the premier military academy of the US army, outlined