Foreign policy vs. domestic policy
Foreign policy = extension of domestic priorities into the international arena (social-contract obligations externalized).
Conducted through commerce, diplomacy, alliance making, treaties, and—when defensible—war (only a “just war,” never wars of conquest).
Ultimate beneficiary = the American people; the umbrella concept is the “national interest.”
Typical foreign-policy issue areas: national security, international trade, border & migration matters, human trafficking, cybersecurity, energy supply, climate change response, public-health & pandemic cooperation, etc.
\textbf{Security} – physical (territorial, border, military), economic, energy, food, cyber, transportation.
\textbf{Economic\;Prosperity} – jobs, open markets, favorable access to raw materials, stable monetary/trade rules, low consumer prices.
\textbf{A\;Better\;World} – promotion of human rights, democracy, peace, humanitarian assistance, environmental stewardship.
\textbf{Power} (hard & soft)
\textbf{Peace}
\textbf{Prosperity}
\textbf{Principles}
Ideal policy maximizes all four; real practice reveals trade-offs & contestation.
Hard power = coercive force, military strength.
Soft power = diplomacy, cultural attraction (Hollywood, NBA, universities), alliances.
\$17\;\text{billion} (\approx\$175\;\text{billion} today) for Western-European reconstruction.
Simultaneously:
Contained communism (security).
Upheld democratic principles (values).
Secured peace by stabilizing allies.
Extended U.S. power/influence via conditional aid.
Stimulated U.S. exports & investment (prosperity).
War of Independence & alliance with France; treaties, anti-colonialism vs. Britain; territorial consolidation.
“Western-Hemisphere only” engagement → Washington’s Farewell Address, Monroe Doctrine.
Westward expansion/Manifest Destiny; Mexican, Spanish & French conflicts; annexations (Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Philippines, Guam, Cuba).
Protectionist trade stance, limited global entanglement.
Continued imperial reach (Caribbean & Pacific occupations).
Protectionism, immigration restrictions, post-Civil-War reconstruction.
After WWI, U.S. retreats inward; domestic economic turmoil; fails to join League of Nations.
Pearl Harbor ends isolationism.
FDR’s “Four Freedoms” → U.S. ascends to global-power status.
Bipolar world: U.S. vs. USSR.
Strategy = containment & deterrence (Truman Doctrine, arms race, mutually assured destruction).
Proxy wars: Korea, Vietnam; key flashpoint: Cuban Missile Crisis (1962).
Alternative doctrines debated: preventive war vs. appeasement.
Assumptions of deterrence:
\text{Certainty} – adversary must know U.S. will respond.
\text{Rationality} – adversary must weigh costs logically.
Unipolar moment: U.S. sole superpower.
21ˢᵗ cent. rivals: rising China, revanchist Russia, nuclear North Korea, aspiring-nuclear Iran.
New threats: terrorism → shift from deterrence to preventive war (Bush Doctrine, invasions of Afghanistan 2001 & Iraq 2003).
Obama era: diplomacy + sanctions + multilateralism; bin Laden raid (2011).
Trump era: mixed signals—elements of isolationism, hard power rhetoric, tariff escalation, NATO skepticism, TPP withdrawal.
Expanded beyond state-on-state threats to non-state actors (Al-Qaeda, ISIS).
Deterrence less effective vs. terrorists → emphasize intelligence, special forces, homeland security.
Trade architecture: GATT (1947{-}1995) → WTO (1995, 151 members).
Regional pacts: NAFTA, proposed TPP.
Pros & cons of free trade: cheaper goods vs. job offshoring.
Globalization controversies: labor abuses, environmental harm, tax avoidance, inequality, perception that WTO favors U.S./EU agribusiness (e.g., 2002 Farm Bill subsidies).
Instruments: humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, treaties.
Human-rights instruments joined: ICCPR, CAT, CERD, IRFA.
Selectivity & hypocrisy: alliances/trade with violators (Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, UAE, Turkey).
Environmental stance: joined Montreal Protocol; left Kyoto (2001) & Paris Climate Accord (2017).
Commander-in-chief, agenda setter. Doctrines: Monroe, Wilson “14 Points,” Truman, Bush preemption, etc.
Can sign executive agreements (treaty-like without Senate ratification).
NSC, State, Defense, Treasury, DHS, CIA, DNI, NSA.
DoD controls \approx80\% of intelligence assets; geographic combatant commanders wield influence.
Powers: declare war, budget/appropriations, regulate commerce, treaty ratification (Senate 2/3).
Oversight committees: Senate Foreign Relations, House/Senate Armed Services, House/Senate Intelligence.
Single-issue lobbies (e.g., AIPAC, energy, agriculture).
Ethnic-diaspora groups (Cuban-Americans, Armenian-Americans).
Human-rights NGOs (Amnesty Int’l).
Public generally less informed on foreign affairs; partisan gaps on perceived threats (Pew 2018 data).
Foreign leaders, crises, global norms, international organizations (UN, NATO, WTO) simultaneously constrain and enable U.S. choices.
\textbf{Military\;Force} (hard power) – costly yet dominant tool; U.S. ≈ 1/3 of global military spend; defense ≈ 15\% of federal outlays, \approx2.7\% GDP (2024 proj.).
\textbf{Diplomacy} – bilateral embassies, multilateral fora.
\textbf{Economic Tools} – aid (USAID, MCC), sanctions, IMF/WB conditionality, WTO dispute panels.
\textbf{Collective Security} – NATO enlargement (Map shows eastward expansion through Finland/Sweden 2024) as hedge against Russian aggression.
\textbf{United Nations} – GA (one-state-one-vote), UNSC (15 states; 5 permanent veto powers). Critiques: undemocratic, occasionally paralyzed (e.g., Iraq 2003, Ukraine 2022).
\textbf{Soft\;Power} – cultural exports, student exchanges, USAID development projects, Voice of America, Fulbright scholarships. Arbitration bodies: ICJ, ICC (mixed U.S. engagement).
Values vs. Interests: supporting authoritarian allies for stability/energy vs. human-rights rhetoric.
Military interventions without formal congressional war declaration (Korea, Vietnam, Balkans, Libya, Syria).
Global perception: U.S. as champion of democracy and as self-interested hegemon.
Trade deficits, factory flight, “China shock” vs. consumer gains.
Environmental leadership vacillation (Kyoto/Paris exits).
Technology & cyber threats (election interference, IP theft).
Nuclear proliferation: Iran JCPOA controversy, DPRK bargaining.
Debate over unipolar vs. multipolar stability.
China: assertive in Indo-Pacific, Belt & Road, South-China-Sea militarization, tech rivalry (5G, semiconductors).
Russia: hybrid warfare, disinformation, invasions of Georgia 2008 & Ukraine 2014,2022, nuclear sabre-rattling.
Iran & North Korea: missile tests, uranium enrichment.
Trade realignment: supply-chain security, CHIPS Act, TPP withdrawal/USMCA adoption.
Climate diplomacy revival (U.S. re-entered Paris 2021), green-tech competition.
Pandemic & bio-security cooperation (COVID-19 lessons).
Domestic polarization affecting sustained foreign-policy consensus.
Pew 2017 threat perceptions split along party lines (e.g., 83\% Democrats call climate change major threat vs. 32\% Republicans).
Military demographics (new enlistees 2015): 85\% HS grads, 70\% white, 44\% from South, 15\% female. Discussion over volunteer force vs. conscription, representational equity.
Should U.S. trade & security partnerships override human-rights concerns?
Must Congress formally declare war before deployments?
Which tool (force, sanctions, diplomacy) best advances U.S. goals?
What should be top foreign-policy priority in the 21ˢᵗ century (climate, China, non-proliferation, cyber, inequality)?
Foreign Policy decisions feed directly back into domestic life: prices at Walmart, jobs in Midwestern factories, gasoline costs, student-visa influx at universities, climate impacts (wildfires, hurricanes).
Alliances (NATO, ANZUS, US-Japan) underpin global order that enables trade routes and internet infrastructure.
Failures abroad (Iraq aftermath, Afghan withdrawal 2021) reshape domestic trust in government and veterans’ wellbeing.
\
Washington's foreign policy aimed to safeguard the new nation's independence and avert costly wars, a goal challenged by European powers seeking to undermine American sovereignty. Early threats included British support for Native American attacks, Spanish denial of Mississippi River access, and their harboring of escaped enslaved people.
The French Revolution, beginning in 1789, initially garnered American support as a successor to their own revolution, with figures like Lafayette involved in both. However, its descent into radicalism and violence, particularly the Reign of Terror (1793-1794) and the execution of the King and Queen, horrified many Americans. Federalists, led by Washington and Hamilton, feared the anarchy, while Democratic-Republicans, like Jefferson, remained loyal to France despite opposing the violence.
When Revolutionary France declared war on Great Britain in February 1793, the conflict threatened to draw in the United States. Washington's cabinet unanimously agreed to remain neutral, though they differed on its implementation: Hamilton favored strict neutrality beneficial to Britain, while Jefferson preferred a looser approach favoring France. The arrival of French Minister Citizen Edmond Charles Genêt complicated matters as he disregarded Washington's neutrality proclamation, arming French privateers from American ports. His actions led Washington to request his recall, marking a precedent for the U.S. requesting the removal of a foreign minister. Congress later codified Washington's neutrality rules, which prohibited the arming of belligerent nations' ships, effectively ceding authority over foreign policy to the executive branch.
Tensions with Britain persisted due to three main issues: the loss of American trading privileges in British ports, Britain's unfulfilled obligations under the Treaty of Paris (1783)—including retaining western forts, failing to compensate southern slave owners for escaped individuals, and unpaid American pre-war debts to British merchants—and the British seizure of purportedly neutral American ships trading with France. To address these, Chief Justice John Jay was dispatched to London in 1794. Despite limited leverage, Jay negotiated a treaty, ratified in 1795, which established commissions for pre-war debts, granted limited American trade access to British ports, and secured the withdrawal of British forces from western forts. The treaty faced significant opposition, particularly from southerners who felt their interests were neglected and from Democratic-Republicans who viewed it as a violation of neutrality and the Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce (1778), but it eventually passed Congress.
Concurrently, Thomas Pinckney negotiated a more popular agreement with Spain, known as the Treaty of San Lorenzo or Pinckney's Treaty. This pact resolved territorial disputes, granted American ships the crucial right to navigate and trade on the Mississippi River, and secured the right to deposit goods for sale in the port of New Orleans, which was under Spanish control. This treaty was especially welcomed by western farmers who relied on river transport for their goods.
George Washington's foreign policy primarily aimed to secure the young nation's independence and avoid entanglement in costly European wars, essential for its survival and growth. He faced immediate challenges from European powers: Britain supported Native American hostilities and maintained western forts, while Spain restricted American access to the Mississippi River and harbored escaped enslaved people. The eruption of the French Revolution and subsequent war between France and Great Britain posed a significant dilemma. Despite initial American support for the revolution, its descent into radical violence, including the Reign of Terror, horrified many. Washington declared the United States neutral in 1793, a decision supported by his cabinet, though they debated the degree of neutrality. The controversial actions of French Minister Citizen Genêt, who armed privateers in American ports, led Washington to request his recall, setting a precedent for executive authority in foreign policy as Congress later codified these neutrality rules.
Washington's administration also worked to normalize relations with Great Britain and Spain. Tensions with Britain stemmed from lost trading privileges, unfulfilled obligations from the Treaty of Paris (1783), and British seizure of American ships trading with France. To resolve these, Chief Justice John Jay negotiated a treaty in 1794, ratified in 1795, which established commissions for pre-war debts, granted limited American trade access to British ports, and secured the withdrawal of British forces from western forts. Although it faced significant opposition, particularly from southerners and Democratic-Republicans, it eventually passed Congress. Concurrently, Thomas Pinckney negotiated a more popular agreement with Spain, known as the Treaty of San Lorenzo or Pinckney's Treaty. This pact resolved territorial disputes, granted American ships the crucial right to navigate and trade on the Mississippi River, and secured the right to deposit goods for sale in the port of New Orleans, which was under Spanish control. This treaty was especially welcomed by western farmers who