302HUM
US Foreign
Policy since
1945
Introduction
Dr Robert Smith
George Eliot 411
Email:
[email protected]
Twitter: @DrRGSmith
Lecture Structure
Why America?
Theory and US Foreign Policy
Grand Strategy
Conclusions
Why America?
Why not?
The United States has been at the heart of the
development of global politics in the last seventy-
five years.
It has helped to shape the liberal global order
through institutions like the United Nations; the
International Monetary Fund; the World Bank;
NATO; GATT; WTO and more.
It has sought to establish international norms from
business to government to individual rights. Its
technologies have revolutionised communications,
manufacturing, and transport.
We consume its culture, food, and fashions.
The full-spectrum power
In the early 2000s the United States military claimed its
war fighting doctrine to be one of full-spectrum
superiority. In this vision the military would dominate
all
Many have suggested that post-Cold War United States
holds a similar role within the global politics.
Susan Strange argued that there are four principle
structures in international relations, of security, money,
trade, and information. If, like the United States, a
country is able to dominate one or more structures then
it will have a decisive role in international affairs. (Hill,
2016: 142 Quoting Strange)
US Foreign Policy action
The dominant role of the United States in global
politics means that when it acts, its actions are
noted and responded to. We study the foreign
policy of the United States because of its
importance.
Also where other states can contemplate action,
the United States has a full range of capabilities to
achieve its foreign policy goals and it can act.
Therefore the United States provides a case study
for understanding the theories of International
Relations and theories about foreign policy.
Understanding US Foreign
Policy
The task of this module is to provide an
engagement with the foreign policies of the United
States.
It will consider the development of US foreign
policy after the Second World War. Looking at both
its successes and its failures.
The module will reflect on the powers of the
United States, be they military, political,
economic, or intellectual.
It will consider the critiques of the US foreign
policy and engage with them.
US Foreign Policy in this
module
The foreign policy of the United States has always been a
source of debate and dispute since the end of the Second
World War.
This module cannot follow all of the foreign policy decisions
of the post-Second World War era, but we will attempt to
touch on some of the more interesting moments:
The Cold War;
The Vietnam War;
China from Mao to Xi Jinping;
Afghanistan before and after 9/11; and
Lots of Iraq.
American power and
values
What we will discover during the module is that American
power is not just about military might or technological
capabilities, it is also about ideology and values.
These values are “revolutionary” in the sense that they
emerge from the history of the formation of the state, “the
City on the Hill,” that claims to be a model for the rest of
the world.
We will consider these American values, first, as a
manifestation of “exceptionalism,” and second, as a
template for US foreign policy around the globe. Has the
United States lived up to its ideals of democratic
government; human rights; and free markets?
Thinking about America
This module does not come with a set narrative of what
is the appropriate way to “think” about the United
States. It is a forum for you to find out more about the
debates on US foreign policy and evaluate them.
If you come to this module as a champion of American
values and power, there is a home for you here.
Equally, if you come to this module as a critic of the
bullying imperial power of the United States, there is
also a home for you here.
And if you are somewhere in the middle, we can also
help!
Championing
America
“It is the threat of the use of
force [against Iraq] and our line-
up there that is going to put
force behind the diplomacy. But
if we have to use force, it is
because we are America; we
are the indispensable nation.
We stand tall and we see further
than other countries into the
future, and we see the danger
here to all of us.”
Madelaine Albright, US Secretary
of State, 19 February 1998.
Criticising
America
“I'm a critic. I think the administration has
really undermined America's power and
reputation and that Iraq may go down in
history as the greatest disaster in American
foreign policy, which means that I think it's
worse than Vietnam in its unintended
consequences and for our reputation. This
president, because his administration is
imposing democracy, which is an
oxymoron, has, I think, hurt the concept. It
is not just that the administration has been
unilateral but that it has been
unidimensional. It has paid attention
primarily to one part of the world, without
enough attention being paid to other parts.”
Madelaine Albright, 2 October 2008.
Theory and US
Foreign Policy
Organising your study
If you look through the module guide you will see that the
lectures are viewed through the prism of some theories
(i.e. liberalism and realism) and some schools of thought
and practice (i.e. neoconservatism and realpolitik).
There is no single school we are following and you may
find some of the theories you have already come across
work just as well as what is being discussed in the lecture.
The best advice I ever received about theories in
International Relations is to consider them as a tool box. If
they are useful to solving the problems in your analysis
use them, but do not get too hung up on them. So see if it
helps in this example.
Why use theories: an
example
Here is a selection of policy options available to
the Clinton presidency in the mid-1990s when
faced with the decision of whether the United
States should intervene in the conflict in Bosnia.
a. Send humanitarian aid;
b. Work to establish a peace process;
c. Arm the Bosnians to resist the aggressive Serbs;
d. Send in NATO military forces; etc.
EACH POLICY EXISTS AS IF THE PRESIDENT THIS REQUIRES
PART OF A WIDER DECIDES TO SEND DIPLOMACY,
NETWORK OF HUMANITARIAN AID NEGOTIATING
POLICYMAKING. THIS WILL BE HANDLED INTERNATIONAL,
BY USAID AND WILL
COORDINATE WITH
OTHER AID PROVIDERS
REGIONAL AND LOCAL
GROUPS. The
(GOVERNMENT AND
NON-GOVERNMENTAL). Bosnian
example
AID IS MOST LIKELY TO HUMANITARIAN AID
BE DELIVERED BY COSTS MONEY AND
MILITARY THERE NEEDS TO BE A
TRANSPORTATION AND BUDGET ALLOCATED
IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR IT. DOES THE
TO PROVIDE SECURITY POLICY HAVE
ON THE GROUND FOR CONGRESSIONAL
DELIVERY AND SUPPORT?
DISTRIBUTION OF THE
AID.
Sources of Foreign Policy by
Rosenau (1971)
Bureaucratic
roles occupies
by individual
policy makers
Personal
Governmental characteristic
structure that s of individual
specifies the foreign policy
policy-making officials and
process government American
elites
Foreign Policy
Domestic/ External
societal environment
environment of the
of a nation International
state system
The Bosnian example
explained
What appears to be a relatively straightforward policy
decision now appears to be more complicated.
What theory should enable us to do is to highlight
what is important to us in our studies and analysis.
Do we want to dig into this detail and explain how the
policy was settled upon in this instance or are we
more interested in taking a higher level view that
seeks to uncover the overarching themes of policy?
In this course we will consider a number of theoretical
approaches – sometimes simultaneously! Here is an
example of a theory of how policy is made.
Other theories are
available
We can have theories about how policy decisions are made,
or we can have theories about why policy is made. The how
is more practical, the why is more ideological.
Schmidt classifies theories of how the US interacts with the
international community in three broad categories. We can
classify these as why theories:
Systemic theories
Defensive realism; and Offensive realism.
Internal, domestic theories
Liberalism; and Marxism.
Constructivism
Grand Strategy
What is a Grand Strategy?
A Grand Strategy is a term used by analysts to describe the
aims and capabilities of a nation’s foreign policy. This is a
compromise between the how and why approach. Goals
(that are ideological) are shaped by practical capabilities.
Dueck defines Grand Strategy as comprising of three factors:
I. It specifies certain national goals, ends, or interests.
II. It identifies existing challenges or threats to those
interests.
III. It selects and recommends the particular policy
instruments or means by which challenges are met and
national goals pursued.
How is it enacted?
The policy instruments may include:
a. Diplomatic commitments;
b. Military intervention;
c. Foreign aid; and
d. Economic sanctions.
“A grand strategy is therefore a kind of conceptual road
map, describing how to identify, prioritize, and match
national resources to national interests against potential
threats.”
Colin Dueck, The Obama Doctrine, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp14-15.
Neo-Isolationism
Neo-isolationism is the least ambitious grand strategy.
Amongst policymakers in Washington during the post-
Second World War timespan it has had few if any
advocates. Political candidates who espouse it have
mostly been at the fringes of the national debate.
Neo-isolationism offers a constricted view of US
national interests. “Internationalism not only
unnecessary but counterproductive.”
The protection of “the security, liberty, and property of
the American people”—is the only vital US interest.
Selective Engagement
Selective engagement endeavours to ensure peace amongst
the great powers.
Interest is focussed on Russia, the wealthier states of the
European Union, the People’s Republic of China, and Japan.
The purpose of U.S. engagement should be to affect directly
the propensity of these powers to go to war with one
another. These are the areas of the world where the world
wars have originated, wars that have managed to reach out
and draw in the United States in spite of its strong inclination
to stay out.
Like the neo-isolationism, selective engagement emerges
from the realist tradition of international politics and its focus
on large concentrations of power.
Cooperative security
(Liberalism)
Cooperative security, begins with an expansive
conception of U.S. interests: the United States has a huge
national interest in world peace.
Cooperative security is the only one of the four strategic
alternatives that is informed by liberalism rather than
realism.
Advocates propose to act collectively, through
international institutions as much as possible.
Cooperative security does not view the great powers as a
generic security problem. Because most are democracies,
or on the road to democracy, and democracies have
historically tended not to fight each other.
Primacy
Primacy is motivated by both power and peace. However, this
strategy holds that only overwhelming US power ensures
peace.
Peace is the result of an imbalance of power in which US
capabilities are sufficient, operating on their own, to subdue
all potential challengers and to comfort all coalition partners.
It is not enough to be first among equals, a comfortable
position for selective engagement. The US must be first alone.
Therefore, both world order and national security require that
the United States maintain the primacy with which it emerged
from the Cold War. Unipolarity is best.
Posen, Barry R. and Andrew L. Ross. “Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy,”International Security
, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 1996/97), pp5–53
Conclusions
Conclusions
The main point to take away from all the theories
and the grand strategies discussed in today’s
lecture is that it is rare to find a single theoretical
perspective that can explain all the complexities
of foreign policy.
Schmidt (Cox and Stokes, Ch. 2) suggests
neoclassical realism as a something of a
compromise between Systemic and Internal
theories.
The grand strategies identified by Posen and Ross
offer outlines of policy but presidents often fall
into more than one camp.
Seminar Reading for Next
Week
Robinson, Piers. 2012.
“Media and US Foreign Policy”
in Cox, Michael and Doug Stokes, US Foreign
Policy (3rd Edition). Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Chapter 11.
