In order to build and maintain their influence, they use tactics, such as framing the issue and shaping the terms of debate; offering information and analysis to elected representatives who may not have the time to research the issue himself or herself ; and monitoring the policy process and reacting to it through disseminating supplementary information, letter-writing campaigns, calling for additional hearings or legislation, and supporting or opposing candidates during elections.
Though ethnic interest groups have existed for many decades, they have become a particularly influential phenomenon since the end of the Cold War.
According to political scientist Thomas Ambrosio, this is a result of growing acceptance that ethnic identity groups have the right to mobilize politically for the purpose of influencing U. The media has changed how citizens perceive and approach about U. Foreign Policy in the 20th century.
One way in which the media could set the agenda is if it is in an area in which very few Americans have direct knowledge of the issues.
This applies to foreign policy. When American military personnel are involved, the media needs to report because the personnel are related to the American public. And when the U. From 40 press corpsmen in , the number in South Vietnam had grown to by January By August that number had jumped to Of the at the beginning of the year, only were Americans. The media caught many combat events, usually on live television, which prompted many American citizens to be concerned about foreign policy.
The U. He had theoretical responsibility under the ambassador for the development of all information policy. He maintained liaison between the embassy, MACV, and the press; publicized information to refute erroneous and misleading news stories; and sought to assist the Saigon correspondents in covering the side of the war most favorable to the policies of the U.
Zorthian possessed both experience with the media and a great deal of patience and tact while maintaining reasonably good relations with the press corps. The Saigon bureau chiefs were also often invited to closed sessions at which presentations would be made by a briefing officer, the CIA station chief, or an official from the embassy who would present background or off-the-record information on upcoming military operations or Vietnamese political events.
What began to change in was the conviction that the forces of good would inevitably prevail. This change would have far-reaching detrimental effects. A self-described liberal media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting FAIR , in consultation with the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory at Virginia Commonwealth University, sponsored an academic study in which journalists were asked a range of questions about how they did their work and about how they viewed the quality of media coverage in the broad area of politics and economic policy.
Finally, they were asked for demographic and identifying information, including their political orientation. Their study concluded that a majority of journalists, although relatively liberal on social policies, were significantly to the right of the public on economic, labor, health care, and foreign policy issues. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. Foreign Policy. Search for:. Who Makes U. Foreign Policy? Key Takeaways Key Points Throughout the course of their time in office, most presidents gravitate towards foreign policy.
It is often argued that the president has more autonomy in foreign policy as compared to domestic policy. The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but only Congress has authority to declare war and provide funding.
The president has the power to make treaties, with a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and has the power to make international agreements. The president is the chief diplomat as head of state. The president can also influence foreign policy by appointing US diplomats and foreign aid workers. Key Terms treaty : A binding agreement under international law concluded by subjects of international law, namely states and international organizations. The Cabinet The secretary of state and secretary of defense play key roles in assisting the president with foreign policy.
Key Takeaways Key Points The secretary of state assists the president in foreign affairs and advises him on representatives and international relations. The secretary of defense, among other things, advises the president on military affairs and hot spots throughout the world.
The Bureaucracy Prominent bureaucratic organizations shaping U. The Department of Defense is the executive department of the U. This has been evoked five times in American history. Sometimes, this clause directly conflicts with what the president wants to do. Trade is also an important policy -making tool. Congress has the power to regulate foreign trade. Learning Objectives Illustrate how interest groups influence U.
In the wake of globalization, in the 21 st century it is particularly important, owing to the interdependence of states. With the advent of international society and globalization implications of foreign policy for each nation-state are far greater. The study of Foreign Policy therefore has become ever more critical and important. The study of Foreign Policy is not limited to any particular school of social science but is a relevant subject for all.
In International Relations this study is particularly important as foreign policies form the base for international interactions between individual states. In the 21 st century, decisions by one state affect more than just the participating countries. Scholars as well as well policy analysts and even the general public, have a greater desire to understand foreign policy decisions and what motivates the head of government in his foreign policy decision making.
Scholarly research on leadership and foreign policy decision making show a far more sophisticated and complex view of the issue than most of the simplistic views seen in the popular press. The popular press prefers pointing finger at the executor of foreign policy decisions as it is easier to blame one person than a group or a system.
However scholarly research uncovers the motivations behind foreign policy decision taken by the executor or in better words head of a government. Foreign Policies are designed by the head of government with the aim of achieving complex domestic and international agendas.
It usually involves an elaborate series of steps and where domestic politics plays an important role. In this paper I will critically analyze the role of head of government of a country in foreign policy decision making and how he is influenced by domestic politics. Foreign policies are in most cases designed through coalitions of domestic and international actors and groups. When analyzing the head of government or in other words the executor of foreign policies many motivating factors can be identified to explain the rationale behind decisions taken.
However out of all the factors mentioned it is domestic political environment that shapes the entire framework of decision making in a country even in international context. My argument is that the scope of the head of government in making decisions is first and foremost defined by the political system where he is operating.
Depending on the power vested in his post and the importance of political and public consensus in the state in question, the head of government can make foreign policy decisions. Other factors such as rationality, personality, international organizations also hold influence on the head of government. However they can also be compromised by the political environment, again depending on the kind of system practiced.
I have taken cases of three countries of varying political systems to do so. The United States is a constitutional republic and representative democracy whereas China is a centrally governed socialist republic. On the other hand Jordan is constitutional monarchy. Taking these three countries as examples will allow analysis of leaders in a broad spectrum of political environments.
Here we can see how in very different systems the head of government behaves differently and how the system influences his decisions. By viewing examples of past foreign policies made by each country, I hope to demonstrate how three very different kind of domestic political systems influenced foreign policy decisions in each case. A thorough study of past literature as well as news, memoirs of leaders will be used in this analysis.
I will conduct primary research from historical data and secondary research from scholarly material available to analyze the influence of political environment as well as other factors on foreign policy decision making.
In the argument for political environment being the most important factor affecting foreign policy decision making, I will analyze factors such as power vested in the head of government, acceptability in the domestic system, consensus of others in the system, strategic decision making, personality of the leader, rationality, and the impact of interest groups.
Important elements of the external environment affecting the head of government include political lobbyists, the military, and the corporate sector. International Non-governmental Organizations and Intergovernmental Organizations also hold influence over foreign policy decision making by the head of government.
The paper concludes with an explanation of how foreign policy is multilevel and multifaceted phenomenon. No one theory can be completely linked to explaining foreign policy decisions. However a generalization can be made by viewing past trends to present an estimate of the rationale behind foreign policy decision making. To understand foreign policy decision making I will first draw on traditional explanations of foreign policy and then proceed to the influence of domestic politics, the issue of acceptability, strategic choice, rational choice, and finally psychological theories of decision making as well.
Foreign policy is the sum of official external relations conducted by an independent actor usually a state in international relations. When trying to analyze the role of the head of government in foreign policy decision making it is important to know what is motivating him.
Depending on the political system of the head of government, the influencing factors will vary. For the head of government in a democracy such as India consensus of the office and public opinion will play an important role. A socialist republic like China may be harsher in taking decisions which may not meet public consensus but have a long term national agenda. The political environment of a country includes all laws, government agencies, and lobbying groups that influence or restrict individuals or organizations in the society.
When talking about the head of government and his decisions the most important factor is the political environment he is operating in. Even international decisions taken by the head of government depends on domestic politics.
The political system will determine the heads scope and power in foreign policy decision making. Political system can be defined as a set of formal legal institutions that constitute a government or a nation-state. It can also be defined over a broad range of categories. For example, a country with no ruler can be called one with Anarchical system and one with a single ruler, Feudalism. The following is a list of a range of political systems and the kind of leadership followed in each.
Sometimes there can be a blend of two systems in a country where as a few are very far apart in ideals. National leaders, especially the head of government has to play a two level game between international and domestic politics.
According to Neack, the head of government in any kind of political system is motivated by two similar goals: retain political power and build and maintain policy coalitions. Barbara Farnham especially highlights the issue of acceptability of policies and its influence on the decision making by head of government. The degree of acceptability required will depend on the political system where the decision maker is operating. For example any foreign policy in a democratic system that does not have consensus is likely not to succeed.
In a Feudalistic system acceptability may not be as important at all times. Regardless, in any kind of political system domestic politics interferes with foreign policy decisions.
The head of the government has to cope simultaneously with international and domestic imperatives and the head of government has to maintain a good face locally and internationally. Before considering any other characteristics of the desired policy, acceptability is most likely to be considered. The head of the government has to consider domestic sentiments as well as the international situation.
If there is a conflict between domestic and international interest the head of the government will probably give emphasis to domestic interest, or surpass the situation altogether. The influence of domestic politics can be demonstrated here with the example of an India and US treaty.
The foreign policy in question here was a nuclear treaty that was to be made between India and the United States in India had not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty NPT and demanded to hold on to and foster its nuclear capabilities to defend itself as long as other countries did so as well. There was opposition from US regarding that and especially regarding the tests conducted by India as well as the enemy state Pakistan in The treaty was designed with the aim of allowing India to continue not signing the NPT in exchange of allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA to conduct inspections of its civilian nuclear facilities.
This treaty also allowed India to reprocess nuclear fuel for energy generation and validated its position as a nuclear weapons power. Despite it being a win win situation for India, the head of government was prepared to withdraw from this treaty to protect domestic political issues. At the time a coalition government was in power in India called the UPA. Manmohan Singh was selected by the Congress Party leadership to be prime minister and head the government.
In , the communist party, threatened to bring down the coalition government if this nuclear agreement was made with the United States. The main opposition party, BJP also strongly opposed this treaty as the collapse of the government would be beneficial for them. If the Communist party had withdrawn from the coalition re-elections would be called and there was no guarantee for Congress that they will regain power. So, Manmohan Singh declared that he would not risk a general election for the sake of the treaty.
The point I would like to bring forward from this example is that the head of government of India was prepared to sacrifice a very important foreign policy for domestic politics. So it can be concluded that the head of government tries to satisfy domestic pressures even at the cost of international developments. Strategic Perspective is a theoretical approach that views individuals as choosing their actions by taking into account the anticipated actions and responses of others with the intention of maximizing their own welfare.
Domestic politics plays an important role when taking strategic foreign policy decisions because the threats anticipated or already executed are to do with national security issues. In the light of recent terrorist attacks this kind of foreign policy was not met with political opposition.
The head of the government had support of its office and thus could execute the attacks on Iraq on the basis of threats posed by Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction as well as aiding terrorist activities. This example demonstrates how implication on domestic politics can be viewed from a strategic perspective to take strategic foreign policy decisions.
When talking about foreign policy and international society the United States is a country mentioned almost everywhere and every time. The United States holds great economic, political, and military influence on the entire world. The head of government cannot take foreign policy decisions without at least two third support of the Senate.
It is the Congress that has the power to conduct commercial activities with other states as well as go to war. The president is the commander in chief and the head of the government and despite relying on consensus of the senate he has significant control over policies. The degree of control over the senate depends on the individual leader, his leadership style and personal charisma. In case of wars, it is even more sensitive.
War requires resources such as money, troops, and equipment and in a democracy, resources require continued public support. If a majority of lawmakers vote against the war, it will be defunded. If a military plan is not supported by majority of lawmakers it will be called off or at best be changed. However, it is the Presidents job to convince the Congress of the validity of any decisions, which must incorporate domestic political agendas. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C.
Marshall recommended that the right military strategy was to focus on Germany first, merely holding the line against Japan until the bigger threat was defeated in Europe and only after Germany was out of the way should the country move forces east and deal with the Japanese.
President Franklin D. The study of foreign policy decision-making seeks to understand how states formulate and enact foreign policy. It views foreign policy as a series of decisions made by particular actors using specific decision-making processes.
The origins of this focus on decision-making are generally traced to the s and s, with the literature increasing in complexity and diversity of approaches in more recent decades. Foreign policy decision-making is situated within foreign policy analysis a subfield of international relations subfield , which applies theories and methods from an array of disciplines—political science, public administration, economics, psychology, sociology—to understand how states make foreign policy, and how these policies translate into geopolitical outcomes.
The literature on foreign policy decision-making is often subdivided based on assumptions about the process by which actors make foreign policy decisions—primarily falling into rational and nonrational decision-making; about who is assumed to make the decision—states, individuals, groups, or organizations; and about the influences believed to be most important in affecting those decisions—international factors, domestic political factors, interpersonal dynamics, etc.
While much of the literature focuses on foreign policy decision-making in the United States, there have been attempts to apply models developed in the US context to other states, as well as to generate generalizable theories about foreign policy decision-making that apply to certain types of states. Taking a decision-making-focused approach to understanding foreign policy began as a reaction to systemic theories of international relations that examined interactions between states without much attention to actors and processes within those states.
Snyder, et al. Garrison and Hudson review the development of the field since the early post-WWII years and suggest where it may go in the future. Goldgeier provides an excellent summary of key works in the field. Garrison, Jean A. This symposium features essays exploring the evolution of different strands of foreign policy analysis and suggesting avenues for further scholarship, with contributions by Jean A.
Essays cover the role of identity in foreign policy decision-making, the interplay of international and domestic politics, the importance of different methodological approaches for foreign policy analysis, group dynamics, and crisis decision-making. Goldgeier, James M. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Goldgeier provides a concise summary of the evolution and future of the study of foreign policy decision-making.
He emphasizes the shift from focusing on rational decision-making to examining the roles of organizations and individuals, including the study of bureaucratic politics, group decision-making, and individual cognition. First published Available online by subscription.
0コメント