1. Foreign and Defense Policy Decision Making
18.3
Foreign and Defense Policy Decision Making
The Constitution
The Executive Branch
Congress
The Judiciary
Interest Groups
The basics of American foreign policy are laid out in the Constitution. The executive branch is the most powerful when it comes to foreign policy. Congress also plays an important role, but the Judiciary generally does not. In this section, we will explore how American foreign policy is made.

2. The Constitution 18.3 Constitutional Convention
Foreign policy powers granted to the national government, not the states
Foreign policy powers divided between the president and Congress
President is commander in chief
Congress funds military and declares war
President appoints ambassadors, subject to Senate approval
The framers of the Constitution granted power to make foreign policy to the national government, not the states. They further divided authority for foreign policy between the president and Congress.
The president is commander in chief of the military, but Congress funds the military and formally declares war. The president appoints ambassadors and other key foreign policy officials, while the Senate confirms those appointments.

3. The Executive Branch 18.3 The President
Preeminent in foreign and defense policy
Relies on National Security Council
The Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security
State formulates foreign policy
Defense formulates military policy
Homeland straddles both policies
The intelligence community
Agencies involved in the collection and analysis of information
The executive branch determines foreign and defense policy. The president relies on the expertise of the National Security Council and his cabinet. The Department of State is generally in charge of formulating foreign policy. The Department of Defense formulates military policy, and the Department of Homeland Security straddles both policies.
The intelligence community comprises all the agencies involved in the collection and analysis of information. The Central Intelligence Agency had been the head of the intelligence community until the Director of National Intelligence was created after the 9/11 attacks. The DNI is aided in its efforts by the FBI, The Department of Homeland Security, and the National Security Agency.

4. 18.3 Who are the President's Foreign and Defense Policy Advisors?
The secretaries of state and defense, along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence community, are among the most important advisers to the president. Here, President Obama announces his national security team, including Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Advisor General James Jones, and Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Images

5. Congress 18.3 Oversight Treaties and Executive Agreements Appointments
Hearings to monitor agency actions
"Fact-finding" missions abroad
Treaties and Executive Agreements
Treaties require Senate approval, executive agreements do not.
Appointments
Senate's responsibility to provide advice, consent on appointing those involved in foreign and defense policy
Congress does not have as much influence over foreign policy as the president does. It can hold hearings to monitor agency actions and conduct "fact-finding" missions abroad.
Treaties require Senate approval, and it is rare that the Senate does not approve them. Presidents have used executive agreements when they want to avoid getting the Senate's approval. These executive agreements usually deal with routine foreign matters, but they have also involved major military commitments.
The Senate does approve key presidential foreign policy appointments, however, and it also controls financing, so it could, in theory, cut funding for a military operation.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to place restraints on the executive branch in conducting military interventions in foreign countries. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of most troop overseas deployment. Most presidents have ignored the resolution, but its constitutionality has not been tested in the courts.

6. Congress 18.3 Appropriations The War Powers Resolution
Can cut funding for military action
The War Powers Resolution
President reports to Congress within 48 hours
Congress does not have as much influence over foreign policy as the president does. It can hold hearings to monitor agency actions and conduct "fact-finding" missions abroad.
Treaties require Senate approval, and it is rare that the Senate does not approve them. Presidents have used executive agreements when they want to avoid getting the Senate's approval. These executive agreements usually deal with routine foreign matters, but they have also involved major military commitments.
The Senate does approve key presidential foreign policy appointments, however, and it also controls financing, so it could, in theory, cut funding for a military operation.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to place restraints on the executive branch in conducting military interventions in foreign countries. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of most troop overseas deployment. Most presidents have ignored the resolution, but its constitutionality has not been tested in the courts.

7. 18.3 How Does Congress Exercise Foreign Affairs Oversight?
One of the roles of Congress is to oversee U.S. foreign policy. This includes not only Congressional hearings and legislation, but also fact finding trips overseas and meetings with foreign leaders. Here, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi meets with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq.
Anonymous/AP Images

8. 18.3 FIGURE 18.1 How Has Defense Spending Changed Over Time?
Defense spending was at its highest absolute levels during World War II. Today, as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it continues to stand at relatively high levels, about $644 billion constant dollars in 2010.
Source: Mackenzie Eaglen, "U.S. Defense Spending: The Mismatch Between Plans and Resources," The Heritage Foundation (June 7, 2010):

9. The Judiciary 18.3 Limited Role Civil War World War II Guantanamo Bay
Tends to dismiss disputes over foreign policy as political in nature
Civil War
Allowed Lincoln to deploy troops without Congressional declaration
World War II
Upheld Japanese internment
Guantanamo Bay
Mixed rulings
The Judiciary's role in foreign and defense policy is fairly limited. The Court tends to dismiss disputes over foreign policy as political in nature, and it tends to be deferential to the president in times of war or threats to security.
For example, during the Civil War, the Supreme Court allowed Lincoln to deploy troops without a Congressional declaration of war. And in World War II the Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans for security reasons.
But in the case of Guantanamo Bay, the off-shore detainment center in Cuba, rulings have been mixed, with some suggesting detainees cannot be kept indefinitely while other rulings have said they can.

10. Interest Groups 18.3 Business Groups Ethnic interest groups
Defense industries
Military–industrial complex
Ethnic interest groups
American-Israel Public Affairs Committee
Cuban-American National Foundation
The federal government isn't the only party involved in foreign policy. Interest groups are also very active. We can break down the foreign policy interest groups into four categories.
Business groups, especially those connected to the defense industry, are active in foreign policy. Ethnic interest groups, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Cuban-American National Foundation, work to influence foreign policy.
The third group includes foreign governments and companies, which work to acquire foreign aid and prevent hostile legislation. Finally, there are ideological public interest groups, such as think tanks and nongovernmental organizations. Examples include the think tanks Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation, as well as nongovernment organizations Amnesty International and Greenpeace.

11. Interest Groups 18.3 Foreign governments and companies
Acquiring foreign aid, preventing hostile bills
Ideological–public interest groups
Think tanks, nongovernmental organizations
Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation
Amnesty International, Greenpeace
The federal government isn't the only party involved in foreign policy. Interest groups are also very active. We can break down the foreign policy interest groups into four categories.
Business groups, especially those connected to the defense industry, are active in foreign policy. Ethnic interest groups, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Cuban-American National Foundation, work to influence foreign policy.
The third group includes foreign governments and companies, which work to acquire foreign aid and prevent hostile legislation. Finally, there are ideological public interest groups, such as think tanks and nongovernmental organizations. Examples include the think tanks Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation, as well as nongovernment organizations Amnesty International and Greenpeace.

12. 18.3
18.3 To get around Senate approval, presidents sometime turn to this foreign policy tool
Appointments
Executive agreements
Treaties
Appropriations
None of the above
What foreign policy tools are at the president's disposal? Please answer the following question.

13. 18.3
18.3 To get around Senate approval, presidents sometime turn to this foreign policy tool
Appointments
Executive agreements
Treaties
Appropriations
None of the above
Unlike appointments and treaties, executive agreements do no require Senate approval.

14. Contemporary Challenges in Foreign and Defense Policy
18.4
Contemporary Challenges in Foreign and Defense Policy
Trade
Terrorism
Nuclear Weapons
We continue to face significant foreign and defense policy challenges. Three of the most important are trade, terrorism, and nuclear weapons. We'll take an in-depth look at those three in this section.

15. Trade 18.4 Making Trade Policy The Case of China
Bilateral, regional and global free trade models
The Case of China
Bilateral trade relationship has grown dramatically over past three decades
3 issues of concern
Loss of American jobs
Trade deficit
Safety of Chinese imports
When it comes to trade, countries tend to be protectionist, or engage in either strategic trade or free trade, although many countries mix some or all of these into their policies. Under protectionism, a country limits the import of foreign goods. Under strategic policy, governments target industries they want to see grow and support them using tax breaks or other benefits. Under free trade, there is limited government interference in trade.
To make trade policy, countries may follow one of three models. Bilateral trade agreements are between two countries. Regional trade agreements involve more than two countries but can be as few as three. The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is an example. Finally, there are global free trade agreements, such as the World Trade Organization.
In its bilateral trade relationship with the U.S., China has grown dramatically over the last three decades, but there are three issues of concern: the loss of American jobs, the trade deficit, and the safety of Chinese imports.

16. 18.4 FIGURE 18.2 Who are the United States' major trading partners?
The United States exports more goods to Canada than any other country. China, Mexico, and Japan also account for large shares of U.S. exports.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics.

17. Terrorism 18.4 Making counterterrorism policy The case of al-Qaeda
Diplomacy
Military power
Economic power
Covert action
The case of al-Qaeda
Militant Islamic terrorist group founded in Pakistan in late 1980s
Headed by Osama bin Laden at time of September 11, 2001 attacks
Now more decentralized
Terrorism can be defined as violence designed to achieve political intimidation and instil fear. Countries like the U.S. have four key tools in crafting counterterrorism policy. It can use diplomacy, military power, economic power, such as sanctions, and covert actions.
Al-Qaeda is a militant Islamic terrorist group founded in Pakistan in the late 1980s. Its initial purpose was to conduct a Jihad, or holy war, in the name of the Islamic religion, particularly against the Soviet Union, which had invaded and attempted to occupy the Muslim nation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, later vehemently objected to the intrusion of U.S. troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia. From a base in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda under the direction of bin Laden launched a series of attacks against U.S. interests. These attacks first focused on U.S. military and diplomatic targets in the Middle East and Africa, and then culminated in the devastating attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001.
Current terrorism is based on extremist Islamic groups. The U.S. has been the target of this religious wave of terrorism, designed to drive the U.S. out of the Middle East.

18. Nuclear Weapons 18.4 Making arms proliferation policy
Disarmament, arms control, denial, and counterproliferation
The case of North Korea
Almost no direct diplomatic contacts between U.S. and North Korea
Various talks have started, but failed
Countries pursue nuclear power to provide for their defense without having to rely on other countries. They may seek the international influence that comes with possession of nuclear power, and they may bend to domestic pressures to gain the weapons.
In response, countries like the U.S. have developed arms proliferation policies. These tend to take one of three forms. Disarmament sees the weapons themselves as a source of conflict and thus seeks to get rid of them entirely. Arms control accepts that there will be nuclear weapons but seeks to reduce the chances that they will be used by decreasing the number and type in existence. Denial seeks to prevent would-be nuclear powers from getting the technology they need to build a bomb. Finally, counterproliferation uses preemptive military action against a country or terrorist group.
While there are almost no direct diplomatic talks between the U.S. and North Korea, there have been various talks to monitor North Korea's nuclear program. In 2010, the United States called for an end to North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs. Confrontation between the two nations appears likely in the foreseeable future.

19. How Has the United States Handled Nuclear Proliferation in North Korea?
18.4
Relations between the United States and North Korea have been tense since the Korean War. A military parade in 2012, shown here, showcases the country's missile technology.
David Guttenfelder/AP Images

20. 18.4
18.4 The idea that weapons are an inherent cause of conflict and should be abolished is:
Disarmament
Arms Control
Denial
Defense
Let's see what you have learned about American foreign policy with respect to nuclear weapons.

21. 18.4
18.4 The idea that weapons are an inherent cause of conflict and should be abolished is:
Disarmament
Arms Control
Denial
Defense
Disarmament seeks to avoid conflict by getting rid of its source, in this case the weapons themselves.

22. Toward Reform: New Challenges in American Foreign Policy
18.5
Toward Reform: New Challenges in American Foreign Policy
Trade, terrorism, and nuclear weapons
Economic growth and influence of China, India, Brazil and Russia
European debt troubles
American public opinion
As we just noted, trade, terrorism, and nuclear weapons will continue to challenge U.S. foreign and defense policy. But those aren't the only challenges. The economic growth of China and India, which, together with Brazil and Russia are collectively called BRIC, also poses challenges.
China has the world's fastest growing economy, and its relationship with the U.S. is very complex. China appears to be the primary challenger to the U.S. but also its most logical partner. Both countries benefit from globalization, both want to limit nuclear power, and both want to rein in countries like Iran and North Korea. But there is also a lot of mistrust between the two.
India's relationship with the U.S. is clearer and is seen as a counterweight to China. But there are troubles in Europe. Some countries such as Greece and Spain are struggling to pay their debts, which puts a strain on the European Central Bank, which lends money to these countries. And complicating all of this is American public opinion. Americans are less interested in foreign policy, and it can be quite difficult to get them to agree on any particular issue.

23. 18.5 What Are the BRIC Countries? Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters
Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Chinese President Hu Jintao, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the BRIC Summit in Brazil in The BRIC countries are among the fastest growing emerging economies in the world, with 40% of the world's population and more than 15% of the global economy.
Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters

24. 18.5
18.5 Relations with this country are challenging because it appears to be both primary challenger to the U.S. and logical partner.
Brazil
Russia
India
China
Please answer one final multiple-choice question on foreign policy and economic power.

25. 18.5
18.5 Relations with this country are challenging because it appears to be both primary challenger to the U.S. and logical partner.
Brazil
Russia
India
China
This statement holds true for China. China and the United States are competitors for global markets. The surge of Chinese imports has resulted in a loss of U.S. jobs, but China is also the United States' second largest trading partner.

26. 18
Discussion Questions
What foreign policy challenges have emerged since the Cold War? What role does each branch of government play in foreign policy?

27. 18 Further Review Listen to the Chapter
Study and Review the Flashcards
Study and Review the Practice Tests