1. Invent your own model Current system of the US foreign policy decision making process is best defined by Hilsman’s model. My model aims to offer a different approach to the existing policy making process model. According to my model; the main actor in foreign policy decision making process is the National Security Council (NSC) instead of the President of the United States. By putting the NSC to the center of my model, I aim to balance the president’s seemingly extreme power in the foreign policy making process and prevent the destructive effects of internal conflicts and rivalries among bureaucratic institutions to affect foreign policy decision making process. President’s status is second to the National Security Council, the President’s …show more content…
However, it cannot be always a beneficial option for the US that its decision making process is led by a one leading figure. There are good examples such as Franklin D. Roosevelt but conversely, there are negative examples in the US foreign policy such as; George W.Bush and Barack Obama, which shaped and applied erroneous policies that undermined the US role in the post-Cold War international system. The NSC’s structure in Classic model is controversial for me. The NSC members are designated by the president and this might allow unchallenged and without balanced foreign policy strategies under crusader type task oriented leader such as George W.Bush. The congress can check the president’s appointments but this will also lead a slow-down and can be regarded as a sign of weakness by the possible international challengers of the US. In addition to this, the current role of the NSC in Hilsman’s model can also lead lack of coordination and open for bureaucratic rivalry under presidents such as Barack Obama. As I stated above, bureaucracy’s role in USFP is also too broad. In Hilsman’s model, bureaucracy is able to affect the decision making process and diminish the effectiveness of foreign policy strategies due to inter-institutional rivalry. People’s role is quite limited in this model with only election of the president. The public does not have any role to determine its country’s foreign policy staff. Although the congress can check the president’s appointees, this usually leads an administrative crisis and considered as a weakness by the challengers of the
In this course we have discussed several topics involving the American government. In this paper I will discuss the American domestic policy and give some details about the goals of the domestic policy. I will explain how domestic policy affects relationships between the United States and the other nations. In addition, I will discuss how domestic policy affects the United States strategy on internationalism and how the media influences such decision. Finally, I will discuss why the shared power of the three branches of the government is sometimes referred to as an invitation to struggle about policy making for foreign affairs.
Even though the authority of this field is split into three positions, the president, congress, and the senate. The president's position is dominant. The constitution designates him as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” Leadership in foreign affairs must flow from the president or it will not flow at all. In times of peace he raises, trains, supervises, and deploys the forces that congress is willing to maintain.
Foreign policy is how one nation deals with many other nations. The book talks about Ronald Regan trying to create foreign policy and then here you have congress like a bunch of ants floating on a log down river each ant thinking there in charge. Foreign policy from the way “How Congress Works’” says is set up by the president and not really. Having congress get involved makes foreign policy way more complicated then needed. Harry Truman was one man who was asked a question. A random person wanted to know who created foreign policy? His answer was that he did. Now this leads to a important example of foreign policy. This leads to John F. Kennedy and we all know what major foreign policy deal he had to deal with. It was the Cuban missile crisis.
This third and most helpful definition focuses not only on outcome, but also, crucially, on norms and process. Values are essential to the study of foreign policy, and explain why the policies of different states can vary so dramatically. Means are equally important: what a country does can be less significant than how it does it, as recent US actions illustrate. Central to pluralism is the notion that the three branches of government should be separate and distinct, with each acting to check and balance the others and thus preventing abuse of power. In the United States, the often-tumultuous relationship between especially the legislative and executive branches has been the subject of much scholarship and debate. The Presidency has seen a slow but constant expansion of power since the days of George Washington, culminating in what Schlesinger has called the "imperial presidencies" of Johnson and Nixon, and continuing today. The official rights and duties of the President as regards foreign policy-making are actually only briefly mentioned in the Constitution, and are rather limited. The President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur". However, presidents have frequently bypassed the need for congressional approval by enacting
Beginning with the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, up to the current Obama doctrine, presidential doctrines have dominated United States foreign policy. A presidential doctrine highlights the goals and positions for United States foreign affairs outlined by the sitting president. Many of the country’s major foreign policy successes or disasters can be explained by tracing the doctrines of sitting or previous presidents and analyzing their evolution and eventual impact on world events. After established, a presidential doctrine often takes on a life of its own. This can be explained by the military resources and human capital involved in carrying out these doctrines. Future presidents often feel compelled to abide by previous doctrines, or find the reality of change can only be done with incremental changes over a period of years. For this reason, presidential doctrines often outlive their creators and consequently effect American foreign policy for years to come.
As the US lead the world as the world's largest economic and military power the decision made in White House could affect the economic prosperity and security of other nations
It is made up of the president, presidential advisors, and foreign policy bureaucracies. The president is the spokesperson for and to the nation. His responsibilities include being the commander in chief of the armed forces, negotiating treaties, and appointing ambassadors. The most important of the presidential advisors in the national security advisor. Led by the national security advisor is that National Security Council. The National Security Council (NSC) is in place to advise and assist the president on national security and foreign policies, and they serve as the president’s principle arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies. The NSC was established under the National Security Act of 1947. The State Department is a cabinet-level department that manages the foreign affairs budget and resources. The State Department is required by Congress to certify countries and meeting targets on human rights, arms control, and reducing drug trafficking in order to be eligible for foreign aid. The executive branch makes and carries out foreign and military policies through these
Examined in the film was the event when Bush was to appoint his foreign policy team. All the advisors he selected were viewed as major contributors in the political picture. It was observed that all but one of these advisors were members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York-based organization that is a well-renowned exponent of America’s Insider establishment. This was a common method used in an attempt to make the United States a one-world government ruled by the elite class. The CFR has made close to every decision in the past regarding foreign policy, no matter what the political party of the current president. Therefore, when President Bush joined forces with this council, it became practically impossible for a change in policy while the Bush Administration is in power (www.thenewamerican.com).
In the admittedly short life time of the Presidential branch its occupants have taken massive strides in empowering and strengthening their office. At times a case could be made that the executive has aspired to too much; threating essential American political values, such is the case of President Franklin Roosevelt who secured a third term of office ignoring precedent and tradition. However, evidence would suggest that for any significant step a president takes towards increasing their power; often results in an equal and opposite reaction. That is not to say that our presidents are weak, in actuality we see that our presidents have significantly increased their power to wage war
In this paper we will compare the formal and informal powers if the President and we will explore how and why the Presidential powers have increased over time. The history of the Presidency is an account of aggrandizement; one envisions, today, a President with far reaching power, however, when looking at the Constitution alone we find a President with significant limits. Is the President of the United States the most powerful person in the world or merely a helpless giant?
The presidency occupies a unique position in all systems of government including the American system of government. The formal powers and the constitutional position occupied by the institution of the presidency are at the core of all national and international politics (Alexandrova & Timmermans, 2013). The President can serve as Commander-in-chief, nominate and appoint ambassadors, just to name a few of the powers of office. However, there is another power that is often overlooked by most, the power of agenda setting. The Constitution does not directly state this power, but it is heavily implied. This paper scrutinizes the institution of the presidency in line with agenda-setting literature. The agenda setting process relates to a series of streams, circumstances, or activities within public policy institutions and processes. The agenda setting process has three streams that incorporate the problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics stream. The problem stream relates to potential policy problems that may have different magnitudes attached to them. The policy stream associates with an agglomeration of potential solutions to policy problems (Eshbaugh-Soha, 2010). Additionally, the politics stream links to those policy issues and solutions that
After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership
Although it is often said that the President of the United States holds the most powerful office in the world, this does not mean that he is able to decide very much for himself. The American Constitution, which was adapted in 1789, clearly states the Separation of Powers. Thus, the president makes up only one third of the government, namely the executive branch. He is also controlled by a complex system of checks and balances, which makes sure that he (or any of the other branches, for that matter) does not become too powerful. We will now have a look at the different problems which may be facing a recently elected president, and then discuss to what extent his powers are important.
As the commander in chief, the president plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy. The president possesses the power to appoint senior cabinet members, commit troops and conduct high level talks with foreign governments. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to ratify treaties, confirm the president’s appointees and approve budgetary measures. And while the president has the ability to commit troops, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Despite criticisms of the American policy making process describing it as inefficient and slow moving, the main purpose and thus benefit of the constitutional separation of power is the framework of checks and balances that safeguard against monopolization of foreign policy decision making.
The USA exercises its foreign policy through financial aid. For example, scarcity relief in North Korea provides not only humanitarian aid but also a base for the development of democratic ideals and bodies.