American Foreign Policy Domestic Context and Foreign Policy: President, Congress, and Bureaucratic Politics

I Principle Foreign Policy Provisions of the Constitution power granted to President power granted to Congress War power Commander in chief of armed forces Provide for the common defence; declare war Treaties Negotiate treaties Ratification of treaties, by 2/3 majority (Senate) Appointments Nominate high-level government officials Confirm president’s appointments (Senate) Foreign commerce No explicit powers, but treaty negotiation and appointment powers pertain Explicit power “to regulate foreign commerce” General powers Executive power; veto Legislative power; power of the purse; oversight and investigation

Congress’ Power concerning foreign policy according to Constitution

Important issues without Constitution’s attention

Some cases of President Vs. Congress

In the years after the Civil War the Senate freely exercised its power to rewrite, amend and reject treaties negotiated by the President. Secretary John Hay said: he doesn’t think “another important treaty will ever pass the Senate.” President tried to evade the veto of the Senate: joint resolution of the Congress and “executive agreement”. In a joint resolution, to pass a treaty needs the simple majority of the House and the Senate, in stead of the 2/3 majority of the Senate. Executive agreement was mainly confined in 19th century to technical matters, but there were such exceptions (Open Door Policy).

During 1950s and much of 1960s, Congress overawed by “the cult of executive expertise”, accepted presidential prerogative. Senator J. F. K, in early 1960: “it is the President alone who must make the major decisions of our foreign policy.” Senator Goldwater: “there is no question that the President can take military action at any time he feels danger for the country or, stretching a point, for its position in the world.” 1962, joint declaration of Secretary of State Rusk and Thai Foreign Minister, and then with Ethiopia (1960), Laos (1963), South Korea (1966) and Israel: all the executive declarations produced a virtual commitment without the pretense of a treaty or even an executive agreement. 1965, Americanization of the Vietnam War: Tonkin Gulf Resolution

Factors of president as a decision-maker 1. Foreign policy experience and expertise 2. Characteristics as an individual 3. World view or belief system 4. Political calculations

Bureaucratic Politics The Overall Foreign Affairs Bureaucracy 1. NSC 2. Department of State 3. Department of Defence 4. Department of Homeland Security

Bureaucratic Politics Bureaucracy concerning Foreign Economic Policy 1. Department of Commerce 2. Department of Treasury 3. Department of Agriculture 4. Bureau of Economic Affairs, State Dept. 5. U.S. Trade Representative 6. International Trade Commission

Bureaucratic Politics Bureaucracy concerning Political democratization, Economic Development 1. AID：Agency for International Development 2. Bur. of Democracy, human rights and labor, State Dept.

Bureaucratic Politics Intelligence Agencies 1. CIA 2. NSC 3. Defence Intelligence Agency 4. Counter Terrorism Center

Bureaucratic Politics Bureaucracy concerning Internationalized Domestic Policy 1. Environmental Protection Agency 2. Office of National Drug Council Policy 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Kennedy administration’s behavior during the crisis was the outcomes of the standard operating procedures followed by separate organizations and as the result of compromise and competition among hawks and doves seeking to advance individual and organizational versions of the national interest. There is no single “maker” of foreign policy. Policy flows instead from an amalgam of large organizations and political actors who differ substantially on any particular issue and who compete to advance their own personal and organizational interests as they try to influence decisions.

criticism Ideological core values shared by “national security managers” weigh more in determining policy than do differences caused by bureaucratic positions. It underestimates the extent to which the president can dominate the bureaucracy by selecting key players and setting the rules of the game. It relies too much on personal interviews, or oral history.

Bureaucratic politics provides a good means to explain the timing and mechanics of particular episodes, illuminating proximate causes, and showing why outcomes were not what was intended. Budget battles, weapons procurement, coordination of intelligence, war termination, alliance politics –in short, any foreign policy that engages the separate attentions of multiple agencies and agents should alert the historian to the bureaucratic politics perspective.