Chapter 17 Discussion

If you were president and wanted to gather support for a new foreign policy initiative, which three U.S. foreign policy actors would you approach and why? What do you think is the most advantageous school of thought for the United States to follow in foreign policy in the future? Why? Respond to at least 2 other students’ posts.

Chapter 17 Learning Objectives:

• Explain what foreign policy is and how it differs from domestic policy.
• Identify the objectives of U.S. foreign policy.
• Explain the role of actors who engage in foreign policy.
• Explain classic schools of thought on U.S. foreign policy.

Remember to  incorporate the course readings to form a foundation for your responses. Be sure to discuss relevant examples.  Additionally, you must properly cite the course text  (Krutz, 2020, page number). Consult the Discussion Grading Guidelines for additional details. 

second peer below

• Explain what foreign policy is and how it differs from domestic policy.

Foreign policy is, ““the goals that a state’s officials seek to attain abroad, the values that give rise to those objectives, and the means or instruments used to pursue them” (Kurtz, 628, 2020). Foreign policy is focused on areas outside of the country, while domestic policy is focused inside of the country. It is important to note that foreign and domestic policy can overlap. For example, immigration issues (foreign policy) may often have domestic related policy issues (housing/education) (Kurtz, 628, 2020).

• Identify the objectives of U.S. foreign policy.

The 4 main objectives of US foreign policy are, “(1) the protection of the U.S. and its citizens, (2) the maintenance of access to key resources and markets, (3) the preservation of a balance of power in the world, and (4) the protection of human rights and democracy” (Kurtz, 629, 2020). The first objective, protection, encompasses treaties/relationships with allied countries. It also includes military policies and those on threats to the country as a whole. These threats can be military or economic in nature. This encompasses things like boycotts, trade agreements, and tariffs. The second objective of maintaining access to key resources includes natural and economic resources. Natural resources are things like water and oil. Economic resources are things like foreign investment money for domestic projects like bridges, tunnels, etc. This objective also covers getting Americans access to good sold by other countries to the US and selling American goods to other countries. The third goal deals with keeping a balance of power around the world. This balance of power refers to making sure no one country is vastly more powerful than the other countries of the world. While this would be impossible to perfectly balance, the US would look to policies that keep countries’ military operations predictable and would focus on an absence of war related conflict. This can also include non-governmental organizations like terrorist groups. The fourth goal regarding protecting human rights and democracy. This is done largely by promoting peace in other countries, providing foreign aid, to developing countries and joining international peacekeeping organizations like the United Nations (Kurtz, 629, 2020).

These foreign policy goals are met by the use of different foreign policy types which include, “trade, diplomacy, sanctions, military/defense, intelligence, foreign aid, and global environmental policy” (Kurtz, 632, 2020). Trade policies influence the exchange of goods and services between the US and other countries. Protectionism policy is when a country does not sell goods or services from other countries or when it charges high tariffs to do so. Free trade policy is where goods/services are freely exchanged with no stipulations. Opponents of free trade say that it does not benefit US workers and companies enough. The US has used both approaches at different times in its history. The United States has a trade deficit which means it imports more goods than it exports (Kurtz, 632, 2020).

Diplomacy policies create and upkeep relationships between countries. Many diplomatic policies rely on ambassadors who represent their countries but live in another country (the one they are forming/upkeeping relationship with). Diplomatic measures are usually the first way the US tries to resolve conflict with other countries. These policies can include shows of soft power, which do not use military means and shows of hard power, which do use the military. The waging of war can also be considered a diplomatic policy (Kurtz, 632-633, 2020).

Intelligence policies are those that refer to getting information from other countries or foreign sources that may be important to the US. These policies can involve direct gathering (overt) or secret gathering (covert) of information. Typically the important information is used to help defend or protect the United States (Kurtz, 633, 2020).

Foreign aid policy involves the US providing materials and economic aid (also known as humanitarian aid) to developing countries to increase stability and the quality of life for those countries’ citizens. This would not include military help for those countries (which would fall under defense policy) (Kurtz, 634, 2020).

Global environmental policies center around environmental issues like global warming, climate change, pollution, extinction of species, etc. This type of policy can involve research, economic funding, and even the joining of environmental pacts/groups. The US participation in environmental policies globally has varied over the years (Kurtz, 634, 2020).

• Explain the role of actors who engage in foreign policy.

White house staff, executive branch staff, and congressional leaders are groups of actors who engage in foreign policy. White House staff people usually have contact with the President about what they are doing. This includes the National Security Advisor of the National Security Council who come from many different foreign policy groups. The National Security Advisor is the president’s right hand man/woman on foreign policy matters. Another set of actors in this same sphere of influence are the director of the CIA and the director of national intelligence. The director of national intelligence oversees the intelligence operations of the US government. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are 6 members of the armed forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, a chair, and a vice chair). The chair is the top military officer. The Secretary of defense heads the defense department but is nonmilitary. The US trade representative deals with US trade with foreign countries (Kurtz, 647-648, 2020).

In the President’s executive office, there is the director of the president’s Office of Management and Budget. This person develops the country’s budget proposal each year which includes foreign policy and foreign aid line items. The secretary of state is the head diplomat of the country. This is a cabinet position who oversees the Foreign Service. The secretary of homeland security is also an actor responsible for security within the United States (Kurtz, 648, 2020).

Congress is also a key group in US foreign policy. The Speaker of the House , the House minority leader, and the Senate majority and minority leaders often have frequent updates on foreign policy issues given to them by the President’s staff people. They are often consulted for support or funding related to foreign policy. Committee chairs and high ranking minority members of the House and Senate committees are often asked for their opinions and views on foreign policy. Commonly included committees are the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Armed Services Committee. They have regular meetings about topics including policy and budget (Kurtz, 649, 2020).

• Explain classic schools of thought on U.S. foreign policy.

Classic schools of thought on US foreign policy include, “isolationism, the idealism versus realism debate, liberal internationalism, hard versus soft power, and the grand strategy of U.S. foreign policy” (Kurtz, 650, 2020). Isolationism is when a country keeps to itself. This policy avoids engaging in any issues with other countries. The opposite of isolationism is liberal internationalism. This policy advocates for the United States to proactively engage in foreign policy around the world. It regularly advocates for the creation of multinational organizations like the UN. These two policies play into the idealism versus realism debate. Liberal internationalists have to operate on a degree of idealism. This idealism says that countries will generally do “good”, take care of one another, and operate fairly and peacefully. Realists believe that countries will typically act in their own self-interests and will always do what is best for them and them alone. Realists value a strong military and tight contracts with other countries that make it hard for these countries to get out of. Realists also have a place in liberal internationalism policies though because all agreements and policies have to be made with an emphasis one what is best for the United States, which is better done with a sense of caution (Kurtz, 650-651, 2020).

Along with the realist versus idealist debate comes the hard versus soft power debate. Often soft power is seen to line up with liberal internationalist and idealist policies while hard power is in line with isolationist and realist ways of thinking. Soft power policies can be implemented, like when Nixon opened China for free trade in the 70’s, but then pulled back like when many thought China was dominating the trading process with the United States. Hard power involves military strengthening and contracts, which those who mistrust other governments are more likely to support. Grand Strategy is often correlated to hard power because it involves employing all resources (even military) to advance national interests. Grand Strategy is demonstrated by the building of military bases in other countries following WWII (Kurtz, 651, 2020).

If you were president and wanted to gather support for a new foreign policy initiative, which three U.S. foreign policy actors would you approach and why?

I would gather the US trade representative, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Security Advisor. I would choose the US trade representative because my foreign policy would try not to center on military strength, but would definitely look to make some economic changes. I believe the US trade representative would be able to give me valuable insight into what the facts/figures on our current trading numbers are, what policies have and have not worked in the past, and where the trade economies of various countries I am interested in seem to be heading. This information would help me to decide countries I would want to develop agreements with, tariffs on, etc. I would include the Director of the Office of Management and Budget because logistically, I know that none of my foreign policy plans will be enacted without the money to do so. Have a realistic budget to present to Congress will be important for me to get my policies both supported and enacted. Finally, I would choose the National Security Advisor because they would be my right hand confidant on foreign policy issues. I would want to keep them close to the inside on all policies I am considering making and receive their feedback. I also know that every action I take will have some kind of consequence, and I think the National Security Advisor would be a good resource for me to use to examine the potential consequences of policies I am considering. The National Security Advisor will also be valuable in helping me to ensure that I pass policies that maintain the safety and success of the American public.

What do you think is the most advantageous school of thought for the United States to follow in foreign policy in the future? Why?

I think the best school of thought for the United States to follow in foreign policy is a hybrid approach. I think all of the foreign policy “schools of thought” have a sound degree of merit to them. The truth of the matter is that as in life, one set approach does not work with all people or all situations. Sometimes, it may be necessary to help facilitate peace between warring nations to eliminate potential global conflict (liberal internationalist). Other times, it may be best to back out and not risk the lives of American military members or the public (isolationist). Sometimes it may be best to focus on trade agreements with countries who have maintained positive relationships with us (soft power), while other times the establishments of strict contracts may be warranted with countries who have become domineering or abusive in trade policies (hard power). Thus, I think it is best to have the ability to change between and mash up different foreign policy approaches because we cannot predict what will happen in the future and need to be ready for anything. I think the best foreign policy school of thought is the one that keeps the public safe and the United States secure and profitable.