Foreign Policy – Comprehensive Study Notes (Ch. 17)

17.1 Defining Foreign Policy

• Foreign policy defined as the actions the U.S. government carries out for specific purposes to manage its relationships with other nations.
  • Policy results from a pattern of actions over time, not a single action.
  • Policy is purposive: it is intentional and aimed at specific outcomes.
  • Foreign policy can be viewed on multiple levels: externally focused goals, values that give rise to those goals, and the instruments used to pursue them.
• Distinction: foreign policy (externally focused) vs domestic policy (internal strategies); they can become intertwined in practice.
  • Example: Latino politics can be domestic or foreign policy depending on whether the context is education at home or immigration/trade with Central/South American countries (Figure 17.2 reference).
• Four major, enduring goals of U.S. foreign policy (to guide government actions): 1) The protection of the United States and its citizens (including protecting allies).
  • Threats can be military or economic (e.g., military threats, terrorism, boycotts, high tariffs).
  • Economic sanctions: suspend trade/financial ties to signal displeasure with another country’s behavior.
    • Economic boycott: cease trade unless policy changes; U.S. goods can’t be sold in the target country and vice versa.
    • Example: Iran sanctions related to its nuclear program; Iran deal involved halting nuclear development in exchange for lifting sanctions.
      2) The maintenance of access to key resources and markets (natural resources, capital for infrastructure, and access to goods for consumers).
  • U.S. interests include selling domestic products abroad and aiding economic development (esp. in developing countries).
    3) The preservation of a balance of power in the world (stability and predictability).
  • Historical context: Cold War stability through dual superpowers (U.S. and the Soviet Union) and fear of nuclear annihilation.
  • Post–Cold War: EU stability and ongoing regional conflicts; threats from nonstate actors (e.g., al-Qaeda, ISIS).
    4) The protection of human rights and democracy (promoting peace, human rights, and democracy through aid, and participation in international organizations).
• Key international institutions and concepts:
  • United Nations (UN): main international organization with General Assembly and Security Council.
  • General Assembly: all member nations; budget and new members admitted by two-thirds vote.
  • Security Council: 15 members (5 permanent, 10 non-permanent with 2-year terms); decisions binding on members.
  • Other UN units: International Court of Justice (The Hague) and UN Secretariat (Secretary-General and staff).
  • Creation context: after WW II; contrast with the earlier failed League of Nations attempt; UN aims include maintaining peace/security, promoting human rights and social progress, and fostering friendly relations.
  • UN coordination in anti-terrorism and development aid remains a core debate; debates on multilateral solutions vs unilateral action persist.
  • NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization): post–World War II alliance formed to protect Western Europe and deter Soviet influence; includes the United States and Western European nations; expanded to include additional members such as Turkey after the Cold War.
  • U.S. foreign aid and debt forgiveness: used to improve stability and living standards in developing countries; debates about whether aid buys influence or serves broader strategic interests.
• Strategic challenges and constraints in foreign policy:
  • No true world-level authority exists to compel behavior; outcomes depend on voluntary cooperation and enforcement through coalitions.
  • Cross-national voluntary associations (UN, OAS, African Union) provide coordination but lack universal enforcement power; EU has supranational authority in some domains (euro, regulations).
  • Brexit and EU challenges (e.g., Greek debt crisis, refugee flows) illustrate limits of supranational institutions.
  • Transnational threats (terrorism) require intelligence and targeted military actions beyond traditional diplomacy.
  • Domestic–foreign policy intertwinement: internal political considerations (e.g., sanctions) shape foreign policy decisions (e.g., Iran).
  • Varied government forms worldwide complicate cooperation; U.S. relations with democracies tend to be smoother due to shared legitimacy and accountability, whereas nondemocratic regimes pose different challenges.
  • Transnational problems (terrorism, climate change, human trafficking) require cross-border solutions that may not map cleanly to national borders.
• “Guns vs. Butter” and strategic trade-offs: internal development vs defense and international engagement.
• Linkages to foundational principles and real-world relevance: foreign policy decisions shape security, prosperity, and values globally; the U.S. frequently leverages a mix of diplomacy, trade policy, sanctions, aid, and military power to achieve goals.

17.2 Foreign Policy Instruments

• Outputs of U.S. foreign policy can be broadly focused (longer horizon; multi-agency; sustained impact) or sharply focused (rapid, often unilateral, shorter-term effects).
• Broadly focused foreign policy outputs (longer-lasting, multi-actor):
  • Public laws (statutes) and their role in foreign policy (e.g., National Security Act, Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, War Powers Resolution).
  • Agency reauthorizations: periodic renewal of foreign policy agencies (every 3–5 years) to maintain legal authority and program legitimacy.
  • Foreign policy budget: annual discretionary budget for foreign policy and defense; funding is essential for program execution.
  • International agreements: bilateral and multilateral agreements that structure cooperation, trade, security, and other concerns.
  • Appointments: Senate-confirmed positions (secretaries, undersecretaries, ambassadors) shape policy directions.
  • Examples and notes:
  • National Security Act governs information sharing/storage; Patriot Act (post-9/11) clarifies government information gathering.
  • War Powers Resolution (1973): Congress’s push to reassert legislative input on war; requires congressional approval to continue a military campaign beyond sixty days; can create tension between branches.
  • Reauthorization cycles lead to regular policy review and adjustments.
• Sharply focused foreign policy outputs (often president-led, quicker, reversible):
  • Deployment of troops and intelligence assets in crises.
  • Presidential summits with other heads of state to tackle targeted issues (e.g., Camp David summits).
  • Emergency funding measures for national security or crisis responses (often with some congressional support).
  • Military actions (e.g., no-fly zones, kinetic strikes) and specific operations.
  • Examples:
  • Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): naval blockade and diplomatic resolution; illustrates executive-led crisis management with congressional briefing.
  • 2011 Libya operation: no-fly zone enforcement; targeted military actions.
• International agreements and treaties vs executive agreements:
  • Constitutionally, treaties require the president to negotiate and Senate to give two-thirds consent before ratification by the president.
  • Most international agreements are executive agreements ( ~> 90% in recent years ); some are congressional-executive agreements (e.g., NAFTA) and require simple-majority approval.
  • United States v. Pink (1942): executive agreements can be legally equivalent to treaties if they do not alter federal law.
  • Iran Nuclear Agreement (2015): debated whether it should be a treaty or an executive agreement; ultimately enacted as a sole executive agreement; risk: can be reversed by a future president.
• Appointments and the Senate confirmation process:
  • Foreign policy appointments (e.g., secretary of state, undersecretaries, ambassadors) generally require Senate confirmation by a majority.
  • Presidents seek nominees with expertise and loyalty to the president’s policy agenda; expectancy of confirmations varies with political climate.
• Linkages to broader questions:
  • The form of an agreement (treaty vs executive) influences durability and ease of reversal; the Iran case highlighted partisan divides on this institutional choice.
  • Emergency funding and crisis response can be rapid but still require Congress’s fiscal authority.
• Quick facts and figures:
  • U.S. aid to developing countries (2013): total foreign aid budget of $40 billion, with foreign aid humanitarian/tactical components: $32 billion in humanitarian/military aid, plus $8 billion in military assistance. This represented less than $1 ext{ percent}$ of the federal budget.
  • Free trade vs protectionism concepts: tariffs on imports can be used to shield domestic producers; free trade aims to reduce such barriers (e.g., NAFTA, 1991).
  • Balance of trade is the relationship between inflows (exports) and outflows (imports). If imports exceed exports, the country runs a trade deficit: ext{deficit} = ext{imports} - ext{exports} > 0. The March 2025 U.S. trade deficit was $140.5$ billion: $ext{deficit}_{2025} = 140.5 ext{ billion}.$
• Diplomatic tools and diplomacy basics:
  • Diplomacy = establishment and maintenance of formal relationships; ambassadors and embassies formalize relations; recalling ambassadors ends diplomatic ties.
  • Diplomacy is the first step in conflict resolution, often preceding sanctions or military options.

17.3 Institutional Relations in Foreign Policy

• Shared power and institutional roles:
  • The president leads foreign policy but must seek Congressional approval for many outputs (particularly budget-related items and authorization).
  • Even sole executive agreements often require funding authorization from Congress.
  • The president delegates work to foreign policy bureaucrats and agencies; separation of powers requires collaboration between branches.
  • Formal roles (as summarized in Table 17.1):
  • Public laws: President proposes/signs; Congress approves passage.
  • Agency reauthorizations: President proposes/signs; Congress approves passage.
  • Foreign policy budget: President proposes/signs; Congress authorizes/appropriates.
  • Treaties: Negotiates/ratifies; Senate consents (two-thirds)$rac{2}{3}$.
  • Sole executive agreements: Negotiates/approves; Congress has no formal role unless funding is required.
  • Congressional–executive agreements: Negotiates; Approved by majority vote.
  • Declaration of war: President proposes; Congress approves by majority vote.
  • Military use of force (beyond sixty days): President initiates; Congress approves by majority.
  • Presidential appointments: Nominates; Senate approves by majority.
• The Two Presidencies Thesis (Wildavsky):
  • Proposes that presidents have a stronger and more successful influence in foreign policy than in domestic policy because of constitutional powers (Commander-in-Chief, treaty/appointment authority), agenda-setting, and the use of executive agreements.
  • Informal power and cross-partisan urgency during crises (e.g., Cold War era) facilitated presidential leadership in foreign policy.
  • Post–Cold War changes include increased partisanship and polarization in Congress, which has narrowed the gap; presidents still enjoy relative advantage in foreign policy, but opposition can still block or veto foreign policy initiatives.
  • In practice, the gap between foreign and domestic policy success has narrowed in recent decades (foreign policy votes may still be easier, but opposition is more frequent).
• The perspective of House and Senate members:
  • Most Representatives and Senators focus on domestic policy unless there is a crisis; foreign policy tends to be driven by leaders and committees.
  • Constituency incentives: foreign policy issues offer limited electoral benefits; domestic concerns (economy, healthcare, crime) carry more weight with voters.
  • When engaged, members gravitate toward committees: Senate Foreign Relations; House Foreign Affairs; Armed Services committees; leadership roles.
  • Some legislators seek roles in foreign policy to advance to executive roles (Secretary of State, Defense, CIA Director) or to influence policy from committees.
  • Active citizen involvement (letters, opinion pieces, advocacy groups) can influence lawmakers.
• The many actors in foreign policy:
  • White House and Executive Office: NSC (National Security Council) chaired by the National Security Advisor; CIA Director; Director of National Intelligence (DNI); Joint Chiefs of Staff (six members + chair and vice chair); Secretary of Defense (civilian leader of DoD); U.S. Trade Representative; Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
  • Other executive branch actors and cabinet secretaries: Secretary of State (chief diplomat, oversees Foreign Service); Secretary of Defense; Secretary of Homeland Security.
  • Congressional actors: Speaker of the House, Senate Majority/Minority Leaders; committee chairs (Senate Foreign Relations, House Foreign Affairs; Armed Services); high-ranking members oversee hearings and budget authorizations.
• Figure references and illustrative roles:
  • Visuals like 17.14 illustrate the network of foreign policy actors.
  • Insiders’ perspectives emphasize interbranch negotiations and the need for coordination among the White House, agencies, and Congress.

17.4 Approaches to Foreign Policy

• Classic schools of thought in U.S. foreign policy:
  • Isolationism: continued (though not absolute) non-involvement in foreign entanglements; historic exemplars include early debates led by figures like Thomas Jefferson and Washington’s Farewell Address warning against entangling alliances.
  • Idealism vs realism (liberal internationalism vs realism):
  • Idealists/ liberal internationalists trust international cooperation, free trade, open diplomacy, and institutions like the UN; Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations advocacy exemplifies this stance.
  • Realists emphasize self-interest, military power, and credible commitments; openness to hard power and a cautious use of diplomacy.
  • Soft power (diplomacy, influence) aligns with liberal internationalism and idealism; hard power (military force) aligns with realism.
  • Liberal internationalism: proactive U.S. engagement and leadership in world affairs, working through international institutions and coalitions to promote peace and democracy (e.g., Woodrow Wilson’s era).
  • Hard power vs soft power: diplomacy and nonmilitary tools or the credible threat/use of military force.
  • Grand strategy: a comprehensive plan that integrates diplomacy, economics, and military power to advance national interests (e.g., post-World War II European/Asian stabilization via bases and alliances like NATO).
• Two major shifts in thought in the late 20th and early 21st centuries:
  • Vietnam and the containment policy critique led to the rise of neoconservatism:
  • Neoconservatism advocates aggressive use of hard power and sometimes unilateral action to promote U.S. values; favors preemption and a willingness to act without broad international consensus.
  • Examples: Reagan-era Central American interventions; 2003 Iraq War; drone-based counterterrorism under the Obama administration.
  • Neo-isolationism and selective engagement in the 21st century:
  • Neo-isolationism: distancing from the United Nations and other international organizations while still participating in the global economy; skepticism about multilateralism.
  • Selective engagement: maintaining a strong military footprint and alliances while avoiding being the world’s police officer.
• Hybrid approaches in practice:
  • President Obama used a blend: liberal internationalism (coalitions and diplomacy) combined with targeted military action (troops and drones) to combat terrorism, while avoiding a universal “world’s police” stance.
  • The hybrid approach acknowledges the evolving threats (transnational terrorism) and the need for flexible tools.
• The U.S. focus on Russia and China in the 21st century:
  • Russia: under Putin, Russia’s power projection and nationalism challenge Western interests; post–Cold War relations have fluctuated; under Biden, increased pressure on wrongdoing and influence in elections, with a more assertive stance on Ukraine.
  • China: rising economic power, large population, global influence; concerns about human rights and strategic competition; U.S. policy has oscillated through engagement (fueling cooperation) and pushback (tariffs under Trump; containment and competition under Biden).
  • U.S. alliances (EU, NATO, Korea, Japan) shape engagement strategies; India represents a growing partner in the region; North Korea remains a unique challenge due to its regime and nuclear program.
  • Global players and regional theaters require a blend of engagement, deterrence, and alliance leverage to manage competition and foster stability.
• Contemporary context and flexible frameworks:
  • The modern era features multiple, sometimes competing, threats (state and nonstate actors) and transnational issues (terrorism, climate change, migration).
  • A single school of thought rarely suffices; many leaders adopt a hybrid, situational approach that draws on liberal internationalism, neoconservatism, and selective engagement as circumstances warrant.
• Key exemplars and historical references:
  • Nixon’s opening to China (1972) demonstrated a shift toward realism and strategic engagement with a rising power; the relationship evolved with China’s economic rise and changing strategic calculations (Figure 17.16).
  • Camp David Accords (1978) and Malta Summit (1989) illustrate focused diplomacy and leadership in pursuit of peace and stability.
  • The Paris Agreement (climate change) and U.S. withdrawal under Trump, followed by re-entry under Biden, illustrate ongoing realignments in global environmental diplomacy.
• Russia–China–U.S. strategic dynamics today:
  • Post–Cold War realignments, Russia’s assertiveness on Europe’s border, China’s expanding global presence, and U.S. efforts to maintain a balance of power through alliances like NATO and bilateral partnerships.
  • U.S. policy debates center on how to balance deterrence, engagement, and domestic priorities while addressing adversaries’ ambitions and alliances’ commitments.

Key Terms (condensed)

• balance of power: a distribution of power such that no one nation or bloc is militarily dominant globally.
• balance of trade: the relation between a country’s imports and exports; a trade deficit occurs when imports exceed exports; measured as ext{deficit} = ext{imports} - ext{exports} > 0.
• Cold War: period roughly post–World War II to 1989–1990 when two major blocs (U.S./West vs USSR/East) posed a nuclear-standoff; deterrence was central.
• congressional executive agreement: an international agreement negotiated by the president and approved by a simple majority of both houses; not a treaty.
• containment: Cold War policy aimed at preventing the spread of communism.
• diplomacy: establishment and maintenance of formal relations between countries; involves ambassadors and embassies.
• economic sanction: coercive measure suspending trade/finance to signal disapproval.
• foreign policy: a government’s goals in dealing with other nations and the strategy used to pursue them.
• free trade: policy allowing the unfettered flow of goods/services between countries.
• hard power: use or threat of military force to influence outcomes.
• isolationism: stance favoring non-involvement in foreign entanglements.
• liberal internationalism: proactive engagement in world affairs through cooperation and institutions.
• neo-isolationism: contemporary variant advocating distancing from international organizations while remaining economically engaged.
• neoconservatism: advocacy of using hard power and unilateral action to promote values and security interests.
• NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization; military alliance to preserve European/Western stability.
• negotiable instruments: treaties vs executive agreements; two-thirds Senate consent vs majority approval.
• Paris Agreement: international climate accord; U.S. commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specified targets.
• regime types and governance: differences in government forms influence foreign policy dynamics and cooperation.
• two presidencies thesis: conceptual framework arguing foreign policy is often more successful under presidential leadership than domestic policy due to constitutional powers and international bargaining.
• United Nations (UN): global organization promoting peace, security, human rights, and development; governance through General Assembly and Security Council.
• unilateralism vs multilateralism: whether the U.S. acts alone or with international partners in foreign affairs.

Summary

• U.S. foreign policy aims to protect national security, secure access to resources and markets, maintain balance of power, and promote human rights and democracy.
• The government uses a mix of instruments—broad, long-term policies (laws, budgets, reauthorizations, treaties, international agreements) and sharp, quick actions (crises, sanctions, military operations, summits).
• Institutional relationships involve shared powers across the presidency and Congress, with the president typically leading but requiring congressional support and oversight for most major outputs.
• The Two Presidencies Thesis explains why foreign policy often appears more successful for presidents than domestic policy, though recent eras show increased partisan challenges.
• Approaches to foreign policy have evolved from isolationism and liberal internationalism to hybrids that blend soft and hard power to address transnational threats.
• Key actors span White House national security staff, the DNI, the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the DoD, the State Department, DHS, and Congress, all coordinating within a system of checks and balances.
• International institutions (UN, NATO, EU) and major agreements (e.g., Iran Nuclear Agreement, NAFTA) shape how the United States engages with the world, but debates over treaty vs executive agreement, and the use of unilateral vs multilateral action, remain central to policy discussions.
• The modern landscape requires flexible, multi-actor, and multi-instrument strategies to respond to both state and nonstate threats across a highly interconnected global system.