Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 627

Chapter 17

Foreign Policy

Figure 17.1 U.S. president Barack Obama and Russian president Vladimir Putin shake hands for the cameras
during the G8 Summit held June 17–18, 2013, at Lough Erne in Northern Ireland.

Chapter Outline
17.1 Defining Foreign Policy
17.2 Foreign Policy Instruments
17.3 Institutional Relations in Foreign Policy
17.4 Approaches to Foreign Policy

Introduction
The U.S. government interacts with a large number of international actors, from other governments to
private organizations, to fight global problems like terrorism and human trafficking, and to meet many
other national foreign policy goals such as encouraging trade and protecting the environment. Sometimes
these goals are conflicting. Perhaps because of these realities, the president is in many ways the leader
of the foreign policy domain. When the United States wishes to discuss important issues with other
nations, the president (or a representative such as the secretary of state) typically does the talking, as when
President Barack Obama visited with Russian president Vladimir Putin in 2013 (Figure 17.1).
But don’t let this image mislead you. While the president is the country’s foreign policy leader, Congress
also has many foreign policy responsibilities, including approving treaties and agreements, allocating
funding, making war, and confirming ambassadors. These and various other activities constitute the
patchwork quilt that is U.S. foreign policy.
How are foreign and domestic policymaking different, and how are they linked? What are the main
foreign policy goals of the United States? How do the president and Congress interact in the foreign policy
realm? In what different ways might foreign policy be pursued? This chapter will delve into these and
other issues to present an overview U.S. foreign policy.
628 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

17.1 Defining Foreign Policy

Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Explain what foreign policy is and how it differs from domestic policy
• Identify the objectives of U.S. foreign policy
• Describe the different types of foreign policy
• Identify the U.S. government’s main challenges in the foreign policy realm

When we consider policy as our chapter focus, we are looking broadly at the actions the U.S. government
carries out for particular purposes. In the case of foreign policy, that purpose is to manage its relationships
with other nations of the world. Another distinction is that policy results from a course of action or a
pattern of actions over time, rather than from a single action or decision. For example, U.S. foreign policy
with Russia has been forged by several presidents, as well as by cabinet secretaries, House and Senate
members, and foreign policy agency bureaucrats. Policy is also purposive, or intended to do something;
that is, policymaking is not random. When the United States enters into an international agreement with
other countries on aims such as free trade or nuclear disarmament, it does so for specific reasons. With that
general definition of policy established, we shall now dig deeper into the specific domain of U.S. foreign
policy.

FOREIGN POLICY BASICS

What is foreign policy? We can think of it on several levels, as “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.”1 This definition highlights some of the key topics in U.S. foreign policy, such as national goals
abroad and the manner in which the United States tries to achieve them. Note too that we distinguish
foreign policy, which is externally focused, from domestic policy, which sets strategies internal to the
United States, though the two types of policies can become quite intertwined. So, for example, one might
talk about Latino politics as a domestic issue when considering educational policies designed to increase
the number of Hispanic Americans who attend and graduate from a U.S. college or university.2 However,
as demonstrated in the primary debates leading up to the 2016 election, Latino politics can quickly become
a foreign policy matter when considering topics such as immigration from and foreign trade with countries
in Central America and South America (Figure 17.2).3

Figure 17.2 Domestic issues can sometimes become international ones when it comes to such topics as foreign
trade. Here, President George W. Bush shakes hands with legislators and administration officials after signing the
Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) Implementation Act on August 2, 2005.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 629

What are the objectives of U.S. foreign policy? While the goals of a nation’s foreign policy are always open
to debate and revision, there are nonetheless four main goals to which we can attribute much of what
the U.S. government does in the foreign policy realm: (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.
The first goal is the protection of the United States and the lives of it citizens, both while they are in
the United States and when they travel abroad. Related to this security goal is the aim of protecting the
country’s allies, or countries with which the United States is friendly and mutually supportive. In the
international sphere, threats and dangers can take several forms, including military threats from other
nations or terrorist groups and economic threats from boycotts and high tariffs on trade.
In an economic boycott, the United States ceases trade with another country unless or until it changes a
policy to which the United States objects. Ceasing trade means U.S. goods cannot be sold in that country
and its goods cannot be sold in the United States. For example, in recent years the United States and other
countries implemented an economic boycott of Iran as it escalated the development of its nuclear energy
program. The recent Iran nuclear deal is a pact in which Iran agrees to halt nuclear development while
the United States and six other countries lift economic sanctions to again allow trade with Iran. Barriers
to trade also include tariffs, or fees charged for moving goods from one country to another. Protectionist
trade policies raise tariffs so that it becomes difficult for imported goods, now more expensive, to compete
on price with domestic goods. Free trade agreements seek to reduce these trade barriers.
The second main goal of U.S. foreign policy is to ensure the nation maintains access to key resources
and markets across the world. Resources include natural resources, such as oil, and economic resources,
including the infusion of foreign capital investment for U.S. domestic infrastructure projects like buildings,
bridges, and weapons systems. Of course, access to the international marketplace also means access
to goods that American consumers might want, such as Swiss chocolate and Australian wine. U.S.
foreign policy also seeks to advance the interests of U.S. business, to both sell domestic products in the
international marketplace and support general economic development around the globe (especially in
developing countries).
A third main goal is the preservation of a balance of power in the world. A balance of power means no
one nation or region is much more powerful militarily than are the countries of the rest of the world. The
achievement of a perfect balance of power is probably not possible, but general stability, or predictability
in the operation of governments, strong institutions, and the absence of violence within and between
nations may be. For much of U.S. history, leaders viewed world stability through the lens of Europe. If the
European continent was stable, so too was the world. During the Cold War era that followed World War II,
stability was achieved by the existence of dual superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and
by the real fear of the nuclear annihilation of which both were capable. Until approximately 1989–1990,
advanced industrial democracies aligned themselves behind one of these two superpowers.
Today, in the post–Cold War era, many parts of Europe are politically more free than they were during the
years of the Soviet bloc, and there is less fear of nuclear war than when the United States and the Soviet
Union had missiles pointed at each other for four straight decades. However, despite the mostly stabilizing
presence of the European Union (EU), which now has twenty-eight member countries, several wars have
been fought in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Moreover, the EU itself faces some challenges,
including a vote in the United Kingdom to leave the EU, the ongoing controversy about how to resolve the
national debt of Greece, and the crisis in Europe created by thousands of refugees from the Middle East.
Carefully planned acts of terrorism in the United States, Asia, and Europe have introduced a new type of
enemy into the balance of power equation—nonstate or nongovernmental organizations, such as al-Qaeda
and ISIS (or ISIL), consisting of various terrorist cells located in many different countries and across all
continents (Figure 17.3).
630 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

Figure 17.3 President Barack Obama, along with French president François Hollande and Paris mayor Anne
Hidalgo, place roses on the makeshift memorial in front of the Bataclan concert hall, one of the sites targeted in the
Paris terrorist attacks of November 13, 2015.

The fourth main goal of U.S. foreign policy is the protection of human rights and democracy. The payoff of
stability that comes from other U.S. foreign policy goals is peace and tranquility. While certainly looking
out for its own strategic interests in considering foreign policy strategy, the United States nonetheless
attempts to support international peace through many aspects of its foreign policy, such as foreign aid,
and through its support of and participation in international organizations such as the United Nations, the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Organization of American States.
The United Nations (UN) is perhaps the foremost international organization in the world today. The
main institutional bodies of the UN are the General Assembly and the Security Council. The General
Assembly includes all member nations and admits new members and approves the UN budget by a two-
thirds majority. The Security Council includes fifteen countries, five of which are permanent members
(including the United States) and ten that are nonpermanent and rotate on a five-year-term basis. The
entire membership is bound by decisions of the Security Council, which makes all decisions related to
international peace and security. Two other important units of the UN are the International Court of Justice
in The Hague (Netherlands) and the UN Secretariat, which includes the Secretary-General of the UN and
the UN staff directors and employees.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 631

Milestone

The Creation of the United Nations

One of the unique and challenging aspects of global affairs is the fact that no world-level authority exists to
mandate when and how the world’s nations interact. After the failed attempt by President Woodrow Wilson
and others to formalize a “League of Nations” in the wake of World War I in the 1920s, and on the heels of a
worldwide depression that began in 1929, came World War II, history’s deadliest military conflict. Now, in the
early decades of the twenty-first century, it is common to think of the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 as
the big game-changer. Yet while 9/11 was hugely significant in the United States and abroad, World War II was
even more so. The December 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) was a comparable surprise-
style attack that plunged the United States into war.
The scope of the conflict, fought in Europe and the Pacific Ocean, and Hitler’s nearly successful attempt to
take over Europe entirely, struck fear in minds and hearts. The war brought about a sea change in international
relations and governance, from the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, to NATO that created a cross-national
military shield for Western Europe, to the creation of the UN in 1945, when the representatives of fifty countries
met and signed the Charter of the United Nations in San Francisco, California (Figure 17.4).

Figure 17.4 On June 26, 2015, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) joined UN secretary-general
Ban Ki-moon, California governor Jerry Brown, and other dignitaries to commemorate the seventieth
anniversary of the adoption of the UN Charter in San Francisco. (credit: modification of work by “Nancy
Pelosi”/Flickr)

Today, the United Nations, headquartered in New York City, includes 193 of the 195 nations of the world. It is a
voluntary association to which member nations pay dues based on the size of their economy. The UN’s main
purposes are to maintain peace and security, promote human rights and social progress, and develop friendly
relationships among nations.
Follow-up activity: In addition to facilitating collective decision-making on world matters, the UN carries
out many different programs. Go to the UN website (https://openstaxcollege.org/l/29UNmain) to find
information about three different UN programs that are carried out around the world.

An ongoing question for the United States in waging the war against terrorism is to what degree it should
work in concert with the UN to carry out anti-terrorism initiatives around the world in a multilateral
632 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

manner, rather than pursuing a “go it alone” strategy of unilateralism. The fact that the U.S. government
has such a choice suggests the voluntary nature of the United States (or another country) accepting world-
level governance in foreign policy. If the United States truly felt bound by UN opinion regarding the
manner in which it carries out its war on terrorism, it would approach the UN Security Council for
approval.
Another cross-national organization to which the United States is tied, and that exists to forcefully
represent Western allies and in turn forge the peace, is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
NATO was formed after World War II as the Cold War between East and West started to emerge. While
more militaristic in approach than the United Nations, NATO has the goal of protecting the interests of
Europe and the West and the assurance of support and defense from partner nations. However, while it
is a strong military coalition, it has not sought to expand and take over other countries. Rather, the peace
and stability of Europe are its main goals. NATO initially included only Western European nations and the
United States. However, since the end of the Cold War, additional countries from the East, such as Turkey,
have entered into the NATO alliance.
Besides participating in the UN and NATO, the United States also distributes hundreds of billions of
dollars each year in foreign aid to improve the quality of life of citizens in developing countries. The United
States may also forgive the foreign debts of these countries. By definition, developing countries are not
modernized in terms of infrastructure and social services and thus suffer from instability. Helping them
modernize and develop stable governments is intended as a benefit to them and a prop to the stability
of the world. An alternative view of U.S. assistance is that there are more nefarious goals at work, that
perhaps it is intended to buy influence in developing countries, secure a position in the region, obtain
access to resources, or foster dependence on the United States.
The United States pursues its four main foreign policy goals through several different foreign policy types,
or distinct substantive areas of foreign policy in which the United States is engaged. These types are trade,
diplomacy, sanctions, military/defense, intelligence, foreign aid, and global environmental policy.
Trade policy is the way the United States interacts with other countries to ease the flow of commerce and
goods and services between countries. A country is said to be engaging in protectionism when it does
not permit other countries to sell goods and services within its borders, or when it charges them very
high tariffs (or import taxes) to do so. At the other end of the spectrum is a free trade approach, in which
a country allows the unfettered flow of goods and services between itself and other countries. At times
the United States has been free trade–oriented, while at other times it has been protectionist. Perhaps its
most free trade–oriented move was the 1991 implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). This pact removed trade barriers and other transaction costs levied on goods moving between
the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
Critics see a free trade approach as problematic and instead advocate for protectionist policies that shield
U.S. companies and their products against cheaper foreign products that might be imported here. One
of the more prominent recent examples of protectionist policies occurred in the steel industry, as U.S.
companies in the international steel marketplace struggled with competition from Chinese factories in
particular.
The balance of trade is the relationship between a country’s inflow and outflow of goods. The United
States sells many goods and services around the world, but overall it maintains a trade deficit, in which
more goods and services are coming in from other countries than are going out to be sold overseas. The
current U.S. trade deficit is $37.4 billion, which means the value of what the United States imports from
other countries is much larger than the value of what it exports to other countries.4 This trade deficit has
led some to advocate for protectionist trade policies.
For many, foreign policy is synonymous with diplomacy. Diplomacy is the establishment and
maintenance of a formal relationship between countries that governs their interactions on matters as
diverse as tourism, the taxation of goods they trade, and the landing of planes on each other’s runways.
While diplomatic relations are not always rosy, when they are operating it does suggest that things are

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 633

going well between the countries. Diplomatic relations are formalized through the sharing of ambassadors.
Ambassadors are country representatives who live and maintain an office (known as an embassy) in the
other country. Just as exchanging ambassadors formalizes the bilateral relationship between countries,
calling them home signifies the end of the relationship. Diplomacy tends to be the U.S. government’s first
step when it tries to resolve a conflict with another country.
To illustrate how international relations play out when countries come into conflict, consider what has
become known as the Hainan Island incident. In 2001, a U.S. spy plane collided with a Chinese jet fighter
near Chinese airspace, where U.S. planes were not authorized to be. The Chinese jet fighter crashed and
the pilot died. The U.S. plane made an emergency landing on the island of Hainan. China retrieved the
aircraft and captured the U.S. pilots. U.S. ambassadors then attempted to negotiate for their return. These
negotiations were slow and ended up involving officials of the president’s cabinet, but they ultimately
worked. Had they not succeeded, an escalating set of options likely would have included diplomatic
sanctions (removal of ambassadors), economic sanctions (such as an embargo on trade and the flow of
money between the countries), minor military options (such as establishment of a no-fly zone just outside
Chinese airspace), or more significant military options (such as a focused campaign to enter China and get
the pilots back). Nonmilitary tools to influence another country, like economic sanctions, are referred to as
soft power, while the use of military power is termed hard power.5
At the more serious end of the foreign policy decision-making spectrum, and usually as a last resort when
diplomacy fails, the U.S. military and defense establishment exists to provide the United States the ability
to wage war against other state and nonstate actors. Such war can be offensive, as were the Iraq War in
2003 and the 1989 removal of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. Or it can be defensive, as a means to
respond to aggression from others, such as the Persian Gulf War in 1991, also known as Operation Desert
Storm (Figure 17.5). The potential for military engagement, and indeed the scattering about the globe of
hundreds of U.S. military installations, can also be a potential source of foreign policy strength for the
United States. On the other hand, in the world of diplomacy, such an approach can be seen as imperialistic
by other world nations.

Figure 17.5 President George H. W. Bush greets U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia on Thanksgiving Day in
1990. The first troops were deployed there in August 1990, as part of Operation Desert Shield, which was intended to
build U.S. military strength in the area in preparation for an eventual military operation.

Intelligence policy is related to defense and includes the overt and covert gathering of information from
foreign sources that might be of strategic interest to the United States. The intelligence world, perhaps
more than any other area of foreign policy, captures the imagination of the general public. Many books,
television shows, and movies entertain us (with varying degrees of accuracy) through stories about U.S.
intelligence operations and people.
634 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

Foreign aid and global environmental policy are the final two foreign policy types. With both, as with
the other types, the United States operates as a strategic actor with its own interests in mind, but here
it also acts as an international steward trying to serve the common good. With foreign aid, the United
States provides material and economic aid to other countries, especially developing countries, in order to
improve their stability and their citizens’ quality of life. This type of aid is sometimes called humanitarian
aid; in 2013 the U.S. contribution totaled $32 billion. Military aid is classified under military/defense or
national security policy (and totaled $8 billion in 2013). At $40 billion the total U.S. foreign aid budget for
2013 was sizeable, though it represented less than 1 percent of the entire federal budget.6
Global environmental policy addresses world-level environmental matters such as climate change and
global warming, the thinning of the ozone layer, rainforest depletion in areas along the Equator, and ocean
pollution and species extinction. The United States’ commitment to such issues has varied considerably
over the years. For example, the United States was the largest country not to sign the 1997 Kyoto Protocol
on greenhouse gas emissions. However, few would argue that the U.S. government has not been a leader
on global environmental matters.

UNIQUE CHALLENGES IN FOREIGN POLICY

U.S. foreign policy is a massive and complex enterprise. What are its unique challenges for the country?
First, there exists no true world-level authority dictating how the nations of the world should relate
to one another. If one nation negotiates in bad faith or lies to another, there is no central world-level
government authority to sanction that country. This makes diplomacy and international coordination an
ongoing bargain as issues evolve and governmental leaders and nations change. Foreign relations are
certainly made smoother by the existence of cross-national voluntary associations like the United Nations,
the Organization of American States, and the African Union. However, these associations do not have
strict enforcement authority over specific nations, unless a group of member nations takes action in some
manner (which is ultimately voluntary).
The European Union is the single supranational entity with some real and significant authority over its
member nations. Adoption of its common currency, the euro, brings with it concessions from countries on
a variety of matters, and the EU’s economic and environmental regulations are the strictest in the world.
Yet even the EU has enforcement issues, as evidenced by the battle within its ranks to force member Greece
to reduce its national debt or the recurring problem of Spain overfishing in the North Atlantic Ocean.
International relations take place in a relatively open venue in which it is seldom clear how to achieve
collective action among countries generally or between the United States and specific other nations in
particular. When does it make sense to sign a multinational pact and when doesn’t it? Is a particular
bilateral economic agreement truly as beneficial to the United States as to the other party, or are we giving
away too much in the deal? These are open and complicated questions, which the various schools of
thought discussed later in the chapter will help us answer.
A second challenge for the United States is the widely differing views among countries about the role of
government in people’s lives. The government of hardline communist North Korea regulates everything in
its people’s lives every day. At the other end of the spectrum are countries with little government activity
at all, such as parts of the island of New Guinea. In between is a vast array of diverse approaches to
governance. Countries like Sweden provide cradle-to-grave human services programs like health care and
education that in some parts of India are minimal at best. In Egypt, the nonprofit sector provides many
services rather than the government. The United States relishes its tradition of freedom and the principle
of limited government, but practice and reality can be somewhat different. In the end, it falls somewhere
in the middle of this continuum because of its focus on law and order, educational and training services,
and old-age pensions and health care in the form of Social Security and Medicare.
The challenge of pinpointing the appropriate role of government may sound more like a domestic than
a foreign policy matter, and to some degree it is an internal choice about the way government interacts
with the people. Yet the internal (or domestic) relationship between a government and its people can

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 635

often become intertwined with foreign policy. For example, the narrow stance on personal liberty that Iran
has taken in recent decades led other countries to impose economic sanctions that crippled the country
internally. Some of these sanctions have eased in light of the new nuclear deal with Iran. So the domestic
and foreign policy realms are intertwined in terms of what we view as national priorities—whether they
consist of nation building abroad or infrastructure building here at home, for example. This latter choice is
often described as the “guns versus butter” debate.
A third, and related, unique challenge for the United States in the foreign policy realm is other countries’
varying ideas about the appropriate form of government. These forms range from democracies on one
side to various authoritarian (or nondemocratic) forms of government on the other. Relations between
the United States and democratic states tend to operate more smoothly, proceeding from the shared core
assumption that government’s authority comes from the people. Monarchies and other nondemocratic
forms of government do not share this assumption, which can complicate foreign policy discussions
immensely. People in the United States often assume that people who live in a nondemocratic country
would prefer to live in a democratic one. However, in some regions of the world, such as the Middle East,
this does not seem to be the case—people often prefer having stability within a nondemocratic system
over changing to a less predictable democratic form of government. Or they may believe in a theocratic
form of government. And the United States does have formal relations with some more totalitarian and
monarchical governments, such as Saudi Arabia, when it is in U.S. interests to do so.
A fourth challenge is that many new foreign policy issues transcend borders. That is, there are no longer
simply friendly states and enemy states. Problems around the world that might affect the United States,
such as terrorism, the international slave trade, and climate change, originate with groups and issues that
are not country-specific. They are transnational. So, for example, while we can readily name the enemies
of the Allied forces in World War II (Germany, Italy, and Japan), the U.S. war against terrorism has been
aimed at terrorist groups that do not fit neatly within the borders of any one country with which the United
States could quickly interact to solve the problem. Intelligence-gathering and focused military intervention
are needed more than traditional diplomatic relations, and relations can become complicated when the
United States wants to pursue terrorists within other countries’ borders. An ongoing example is the use of
U.S. drone strikes on terrorist targets within the nation of Pakistan, in addition to the 2011 campaign that
resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda (Figure 17.6).

Figure 17.6 President Barack Obama (second from left) with Vice President Joe Biden (far left), Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton (second from right), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (far right), and other national security advisers
in the Situation Room of the White House, watching the successful raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound on May 1,
2011.

The fifth and final unique challenge is the varying conditions of the countries in the world and their effect
on what is possible in terms of foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Relations between the United States
and a stable industrial democracy are going to be easier than between the United States and an unstable
636 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

developing country being run by a military junta (a group that has taken control of the government
by force). Moreover, an unstable country will be more focused on establishing internal stability than on
broader world concerns like environmental policy. In fact, developing countries are temporarily exempt
from the requirements of certain treaties while they seek to develop stable industrial and governmental
frameworks.

Link to Learning

The Council on Foreign Relations (https://openstaxcollege.org/l/

29ConclFrgRel) is one of the nation’s oldest organizations that exist to promote
thoughtful discussion on U.S. foreign policy.

17.2 Foreign Policy Instruments

Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Describe the outputs of broadly focused U.S. foreign policy
• Describe the outputs of sharply focused U.S. foreign policy
• Analyze the role of Congress in foreign policy

The decisions or outputs of U.S. foreign policy vary from presidential directives about conducting drone
strokes to the size of the overall foreign relations budget passed by Congress, and from presidential
summits with other heads of state to U.S. views of new policies considered in the UN Security Council. In
this section, we consider the outputs of foreign policy produced by the U.S. government, beginning with
broadly focused decisions and then discussing more sharply focused strategies. Drawing this distinction
brings some clarity to the array of different policy outcomes in foreign policy. Broadly focused decisions
typically take longer to formalize, bring in more actors in the United States and abroad, require more
resources to carry out, are harder to reverse, and hence tend to have a lasting impact. Sharply focused
outputs tend to be processed quickly, are often unilateral moves by the president, have a shorter time
horizon, are easier for subsequent decision-makers to reverse, and hence do not usually have so lasting an
impact as broadly focused foreign policy outputs.

BROADLY FOCUSED FOREIGN POLICY OUTPUTS

Broadly focused foreign policy outputs not only span multiple topics and organizations, but they also
typically require large-scale spending and take longer to implement than sharply focused outputs. In the
realm of broadly focused outputs, we will consider public laws, the periodic reauthorization of the foreign
policy agencies, the foreign policy budget, international agreements, and the appointment process for new
executive officials and ambassadors.
Public Laws
When we talk about new laws enacted by Congress and the president, we are referring to public laws.
Public laws, sometimes called statutes, are policies that affect more than a single individual. All policies
enacted by Congress and the president are public laws, except for a few dozen each year. They differ from
private laws, which require some sort of action or payment by a specific individual or individuals named in
the law.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 637

Many statutes affect what the government can do in the foreign policy realm, including the National
Security Act, the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the War Powers Resolution. The National
Security Act governs the way the government shares and stores information, while the Patriot Act (passed
immediately after 9/11) clarifies what the government may do in collecting information about people
in the name of protecting the country. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorized the creation of a
massive new federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security, consolidating powers that had been
under the jurisdiction of several different agencies. Their earlier lack of coordination may have prevented
the United States from recognizing warning signs of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 by a congressional override of President Richard Nixon’s
veto. The bill was Congress’s attempt to reassert itself in war-making. Congress has the power to declare
war, but it had not formally done so since Japan’s 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States
into World War II. Yet the United States had entered several wars since that time, including in Korea, in
Vietnam, and in focused military campaigns such as the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. The War
Powers Resolution created a new series of steps to be followed by presidents in waging military conflict
with other countries.
Its main feature was a requirement that presidents get approval from Congress to continue any military
campaign beyond sixty days. To many, however, the overall effect was actually to strengthen the role of
the president in war-making. After all, the law clarified that presidents could act on their own for sixty
days before getting authorization from Congress to continue, and many smaller-scale conflicts are over
within sixty days. Before the War Powers Resolution, the first approval for war was supposed to come
from Congress. In theory, Congress, with its constitutional war powers, could act to reverse the actions
of a president once the sixty days have passed. However, a clear disagreement between Congress and the
president, especially once an initiative has begun and there is a “rally around the flag” effect, is relatively
rare. More likely are tough questions about the campaign to which continuing congressional funding is
tied.

Reauthorization
All federal agencies, including those dedicated to foreign policy, face reauthorization every three to five
years. If not reauthorized, agencies lose their legal standing and the ability to spend federal funds to carry
out programs. Agencies typically are reauthorized, because they coordinate carefully with presidential
and congressional staff to get their affairs in order when the time comes. However, the reauthorization
requirements do create a regular conversation between the agency and its political principals about how
well it is functioning and what could be improved.
The federal budget process is an important annual tradition that affects all areas of foreign policy. The
foreign policy and defense budgets are part of the discretionary budget, or the section of the national
budget that Congress vets and decides on each year. Foreign policy leaders in the executive and legislative
branches must advocate for funding from this budget, and while foreign policy budgets are usually
renewed, there are enough proposed changes each year to make things interesting. In addition to new
agencies, new cross-national projects are proposed each year to add to infrastructure and increase or
improve foreign aid, intelligence, and national security technology.

Agreements
International agreements represent another of the broad-based foreign policy instruments. The United
States finds it useful to enter into international agreements with other countries for a variety of reasons and
on a variety of different subjects. These agreements run the gamut from bilateral agreements about tariffs
to multinational agreements among dozens of countries about the treatment of prisoners of war. One
recent multinational pact was the seven-country Iran Nuclear Agreement in 2015, intended to limit nuclear
development in Iran in exchange for the lifting of long-standing economic sanctions on that country
(Figure 17.7).
638 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

Figure 17.7 The ministers of foreign affairs and other officials from China, France, Germany, the European Union,
Iran, Russia, and the United Kingdom join Secretary of State John Kerry (far right) in April 2015 to announce the
framework that would lead to the multinational Iran Nuclear Agreement. (credit: modification of work by the U.S.
Department of State)

The format that an international agreement takes has been the point of considerable discussion in recent
years. The U.S. Constitution outlines the treaty process in Article II. The president negotiates a treaty,
the Senate consents to the treaty by a two-thirds vote, and finally the president ratifies it. Despite that
constitutional clarity, today over 90 percent of the international agreements into which the United States
enters are not treaties but rather executive agreements.7 Executive agreements are negotiated by the
president, and in the case of sole executive agreements, they are simultaneously approved by the
president as well. On the other hand, congressional-executive agreements, like the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), are negotiated by the president and then approved by a simple majority of the
House and Senate (rather than a two-thirds vote in the Senate as is the case for a treaty). In the key case of
United States v. Pink (1942), the Supreme Court ruled that executive agreements were legally equivalent to
treaties provided they did not alter federal law.8 Most executive agreements are not of major importance
and do not spark controversy, while some, like the Iran Nuclear Agreement, generate considerable debate.
Many in the Senate thought the Iran deal should have been completed as a treaty rather than as a sole
executive agreement.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 639

Finding a Middle Ground

Treaty or Executive Agreement?

Should new international agreements into which the United States enters be forged through the Article II treaty
process of the U.S. Constitution, or through executive agreements? This question arose again in 2015 as the
Iran Nuclear Agreement was being completed. That pact required Iran to halt further nuclear development and
agree to nuclear inspections, while the United States and five other signatories lifted long-standing economic
sanctions on Iran. The debate over whether the United States should have entered the agreement and whether
it should have been a treaty rather than an executive agreement was conducted in the news media and on
political comedy shows like The Daily Show.
Your view on the form of the pact will depend on how you see executive agreements being employed. Do
presidents use them to circumvent the Senate (as the “evasion hypothesis” suggests)? Or are they an efficient
tool that saves the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations the work of processing hundreds of agreements
each year?
Politicians’ opinions about the form of the Iran Nuclear Agreement fell along party lines. Democrats accepted
the president’s decision to use an executive agreement to finalize the pact, which they tended to support.
Republicans, who were overwhelmingly against the pact, favored the use of the treaty process, which would
have allowed them to vote the deal down. In the end, the president used an executive agreement and the pact
was enacted. The downside is that an executive agreement can be reversed by the next president. Treaties
are much more difficult to undo because they require a new process to be undertaken in the Senate in order
for the president to gain approval.
Which approach do you favor for the Iran Nuclear Agreement, an executive agreement or a treaty? Why?

Link to Learning

Watch “Under Miner” (https://openstaxcollege.org/l/29UnderMin) and “Start

Wars” (https://openstaxcollege.org/l/29StartWars) to see the take of Jon Stewart
and The Daily Show on the Iran Nuclear Agreement.

Appointments
The last broad type of foreign policy output consists of the foreign policy appointments made when a new
president takes office. Typically, when the party in the White House changes, more new appointments
are made than when the party does not change, because the incoming president wants to put in place
people who share his or her agenda. This was the case in 2001 when Republican George W. Bush succeeded
Democrat Bill Clinton, and again in 2009 when Democrat Barack Obama succeeded Bush.
Most foreign policy–related appointments, such as secretary of state and the various undersecretaries and
assistant secretaries, as well as all ambassadors, must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate (Figure
17.8). Presidents seek to nominate people who know the area to which they’re being appointed and who
will be loyal to the president rather than to the bureaucracy in which they might work. They also want
their nominees to be readily confirmed. As we will see in more detail later in the chapter, an isolationist
group of appointees will run the country’s foreign policy agencies very differently than a group that is
more internationalist in its outlook. Isolationists might seek to pull back from foreign policy involvement
around the globe, while internationalists would go in the other direction, toward more involvement and
toward acting in conjunction with other countries.
640 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

Figure 17.8 Madeleine Albright (a), the first female secretary of state, was nominated by President Bill Clinton and
unanimously confirmed by the Senate 99–0. Colin Powell (b), nominated by George W. Bush, was also unanimously
confirmed. Condoleezza Rice (c) had a more difficult road, earning thirteen votes against, the most for any secretary
of state nominee since Henry Clay in 1825. According to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), senators wanted “to hold Dr.
Rice and the Bush administration accountable for their failures in Iraq and in the war on terrorism.”

SHARPLY FOCUSED FOREIGN POLICY OUTPUTS

In addition to the broad-based foreign policy outputs above, which are president-led with some
involvement from Congress, many other decisions need to be made. These sharply focused foreign
policy outputs tend to be exclusively the province of the president, including the deployment of troops
and/or intelligence agents in a crisis, executive summits between the president and other heads of
state on targeted matters of foreign policy, presidential use of military force, and emergency funding
measures to deal with foreign policy crises. These measures of foreign policy are more quickly enacted
and demonstrate the “energy and dispatch” that Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, saw
as inherent in the institution of the presidency. Emergency spending does involve Congress through its
power of the purse, but Congress tends to give presidents what they need to deal with emergencies. That
said, the framers were consistent in wanting checks and balances sprinkled throughout the Constitution,
including in the area of foreign policy and war powers. Hence, Congress has several roles, as discussed at
points throughout this chapter.
Perhaps the most famous foreign policy emergency was the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. With the
Soviet Union placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, just a few hundred miles from Florida, a Cold War
standoff with the United States escalated. The Soviets at first denied the existence of the missiles, but U.S.
reconnaissance flights proved they were there, gathering photographic evidence that was presented at the
UN (Figure 17.9). The Soviets stood firm, and U.S. foreign policy leaders debated their approach. Some
in the military were pushing for aggressive action to take out the missiles and the installation in Cuba,
while State Department officials favored a diplomatic route. President John F. Kennedy ended up taking
the recommendation of a special committee, and the United States implemented a naval blockade of Cuba
that subtly forced the Soviets’ hands. The Soviets agreed to remove their Cuban missiles and the United
States in turn agreed six months later to remove its missiles from Turkey.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 641

Figure 17.9 This low-level U.S. Navy photograph of San Cristobal, Cuba, clearly shows one of the sites built to
launch intermediate-range missiles at the United States (a). As the date indicates, it was taken on the last day of the
Cuban Missile Crisis. Following the crisis, President Kennedy (far right) met with the reconnaissance pilots who flew
the Cuban missions (b). (credit a: modification of work by the National Archives and Record Administration)

Link to Learning

Listen to President Kennedy’s speech (https://openstaxcollege.org/l/

29KennSpch) announcing the naval blockade the United States imposed on Cuba,
ending the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Another form of focused foreign policy output is the presidential summit. Often held at the Presidential
Retreat at Camp David, Maryland, these meetings bring together the president and one or more other
heads of state. Presidents use these types of summits when they and their visitors need to dive deeply
into important issues that are not quickly solved. An example is the 1978 summit that led to the Camp
David Accords, in which President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian president Anwar El Sadat, and Israeli prime
minister Menachem Begin met privately for twelve days at Camp David negotiating a peace process for the
two countries, which had been at odds with each other in the Middle East. Another example is the Malta
Summit between President George H. W. Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, which took place
on the island of Malta over two days in December 1989 (Figure 17.10). The meetings were an important
symbol of the end of the Cold War, the Berlin Wall having come down just a few months earlier.
642 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

Figure 17.10 President Jimmy Carter meets with Egypt’s Anwar El Sadat (left) and Israel’s Menachem Begin (right)
at Camp David in 1978 (a). President George H. W. Bush (right) dines with Mikhail Gorbachev (left) at the Malta
Summit in 1989 (b). (credit b: modification of work by the National Archives and Records Administration)

Another focused foreign policy output is the military use of force. Since the 1941 Pearl Harbor attacks
and the immediate declaration of war by Congress that resulted, all such initial uses of force have been
authorized by the president. Congress in many cases has subsequently supported additional military
action, but the president has been the instigator. While there has sometimes been criticism, Congress has
never acted to reverse presidential action. As discussed above, the War Powers Resolution clarified that the
first step in the use of force was the president’s, for the first sixty days. A recent example of the military use
of force was the U.S. role in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in 2011, which included kinetic strikes—or
active engagement of the enemy—to protect anti-government forces on the ground. U.S. fighter jets flew
out of Aviano Air Base in northern Italy (Figure 17.11).

Figure 17.11 One example of a sharply focused foreign policy output is the use of the U.S. military abroad. Here,
the Air Force fighter jets used to enforce a 2011 no-fly zone over Libya return to a NATO air base in northeastern
Italy. (credit: Tierney P. Wilson)

The final example of a focused foreign policy input is the passage of an emergency funding measure for a
specific national security task. Congress tends to pass at least one emergency spending measure per year,
which must be signed by the president to take effect, and it often provides funding for domestic disasters.
However, at times foreign policy matters drive an emergency spending measure, as was the case right
after the 9/11 attacks. In such a case, the president or the administration proposes particular amounts for
emergency foreign policy plans.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 643

17.3 Institutional Relations in Foreign Policy

Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Describe the use of shared power in U.S. foreign policymaking
• Explain why presidents lead more in foreign policy than in domestic policy
• Discuss why individual House and Senate members rarely venture into foreign policy
• List the actors who engage in foreign policy

Institutional relationships in foreign policy constitute a paradox. On the one hand, there are aspects
of foreign policymaking that necessarily engage multiple branches of government and a multiplicity of
actors. Indeed, there is a complexity to foreign policy that is bewildering, in terms of both substance
and process. On the other hand, foreign policymaking can sometimes call for nothing more than for the
president to make a formal decision, quickly endorsed by the legislative branch. This section will explore
the institutional relationships present in U.S. foreign policymaking.

FOREIGN POLICY AND SHARED POWER

While presidents are more empowered by the Constitution in foreign than in domestic policy, they
nonetheless must seek approval from Congress on a variety of matters; chief among these is the basic
budgetary authority needed to run foreign policy programs. Indeed, most if not all of the foreign policy
instruments described earlier in this chapter require interbranch approval to go into effect. Such approval
may sometimes be a formality, but it is still important. Even a sole executive agreement often requires
subsequent funding from Congress in order to be carried out, and funding calls for majority support from
the House and Senate. Presidents lead, to be sure, but they must consult with and engage the Congress
on many matters of foreign policy. Presidents must also delegate a great deal in foreign policy to the
bureaucratic experts in the foreign policy agencies. Not every operation can be run from the West Wing of
the White House.
At bottom, the United States is a separation-of-powers political system with authority divided among
executive and legislative branches, including in the foreign policy realm. Table 17.1 shows the formal roles
of the president and Congress in conducting foreign policy.

Roles of the President and Congress in Conducting Foreign Policy

Policy Output Presidential Role Congressional Role
Public laws Proposes, signs into law Proposes, approves for passage

Agency reauthorizations Proposes, signs into law Approves for passage

Foreign policy budget Proposes, signs into law Authorizes/appropriates for passage

Treaties Negotiates, ratifies Senate consents to treaty (two-thirds)

Sole executive agreements Negotiates, approves None (unless funding is required)

Congressional-executive Negotiates Approves by majority vote

agreements

Declaration of war Proposes Approves by majority vote

Carries out operations at will (sixty Approves for operations beyond

Military use of force
days) sixty days

Table 17.1
644 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

Roles of the President and Congress in Conducting Foreign Policy

Policy Output Presidential Role Congressional Role
Presidential appointments Nominates candidates Senate approves by majority vote

Table 17.1

The main lesson of Table 17.1 is that nearly all major outputs of foreign policy require a formal
congressional role in order to be carried out. Foreign policy might be done by executive say-so in times
of crisis and in the handful of sole executive agreements that actually pertain to major issues (like
the Iran Nuclear Agreement). In general, however, a consultative relationship between the branches
in foreign policy is the usual result of their constitutional sharing of power. A president who ignores
Congress on matters of foreign policy and does not keep them briefed may find later interactions on
other matters more difficult. Probably the most extreme version of this potential dynamic occurred
during the Eisenhower presidency. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower used too many executive
agreements instead of sending key ones to the Senate as treaties, Congress reacted by considering a
constitutional amendment (the Bricker Amendment) that would have altered the treaty process as we
know it. Eisenhower understood the message and began to send more agreements through the process as
treaties.9
Shared power creates an incentive for the branches to cooperate. Even in the midst of a crisis, such as the
Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, it is common for the president or senior staff to brief congressional leaders
in order to keep them up to speed and ensure the country can stand unified on international matters. That
said, there are areas of foreign policy where the president has more discretion, such as the operation of
intelligence programs, the holding of foreign policy summits, and the mobilization of troops or agents in
times of crisis. Moreover, presidents have more power and influence in foreign policymaking than they do
in domestic policymaking. It is to that power that we now turn.

THE TWO PRESIDENCIES THESIS

When the media cover a domestic controversy, such as social unrest or police brutality, reporters consult
officials at different levels and in branches of government, as well as think tanks and advocacy groups. In
contrast, when an international event occurs, such as a terrorist bombing in Paris or Brussels, the media
flock predominately to one actor—the president of the United States—to get the official U.S. position.
In the realm of foreign policy and international relations, the president occupies a leadership spot that
is much clearer than in the realm of domestic policy. This dual domestic and international role has been
described by the two presidencies thesis. This theory originated with University of California–Berkeley
professor Aaron Wildavsky and suggests that there are two distinct presidencies, one for foreign policy
and one for domestic policy, and that presidents are more successful in foreign than domestic policy. Let’s
look at the reasoning behind this thesis.
The Constitution names the president as the commander-in-chief of the military, the nominating authority
for executive officials and ambassadors, and the initial negotiator of foreign agreements and treaties. The
president is the agenda-setter for foreign policy and may move unilaterally in some instances. Beyond the
Constitution, presidents were also gradually given more authority to enter into international agreements
without Senate consent by using the executive agreement. We saw above that the passage of the War
Powers Resolution in 1973, though intended as a statute to rein in executive power and reassert Congress
as a check on the president, effectively gave presidents two months to wage war however they wish. Given
all these powers, we have good reason to expect presidents to have more influence and be more successful
in foreign than in domestic policy.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 645

A second reason for the stronger foreign policy presidency has to do with the informal aspects of power.
In some eras, Congress will be more willing to allow the president to be a clear leader and speak for the
country. For instance, the Cold War between the Eastern bloc countries (led by the Soviet Union) and the
West (led by the United States and Western European allies) prompted many to want a single actor to
speak for the United States. A willing Congress allowed the president to take the lead because of urgent
circumstances (Figure 17.12). Much of the Cold War also took place when the parties in Congress included
more moderates on both sides of the aisle and the environment was less partisan than today. A phrase
often heard at that time was, “Partisanship stops at the water’s edge.” This means that foreign policy
matters should not be subject to the bitter disagreements seen in party politics.

Figure 17.12 President John F. Kennedy gives a speech about freedom in the shadow of the Berlin Wall (a). The
wall was erected in 1963 by East Germany to keep its citizens from defecting to West Berlin. On September 14,
2001, President George W. Bush promises justice at the site of the destroyed World Trade Center in New York City
(b). Rescue workers responded by chanting “U.S.A., U.S.A.!” (credit a: modification of work by the John F. Kennedy
Library)

Does the thesis’s expectation of a more successful foreign policy presidency apply today? While the
president still has stronger foreign policy powers than domestic powers, the governing context has
changed in two key ways. First, the Cold War ended in 1989 with the demolition of the Berlin Wall, the
subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the eventual opening up of Eastern European territories
to independence and democracy. These dramatic changes removed the competitive superpower aspect of
the Cold War, in which the United States and the USSR were dueling rivals on the world stage. The absence
of the Cold War has led to less of a rally-behind-the-president effect in the area of foreign policy.
Second, beginning in the 1980s and escalating in the 1990s, the Democratic and Republican parties began
to become polarized in Congress. The moderate members in each party all but disappeared, while more
ideologically motivated candidates began to win election to the House and later the Senate. Hence, the
Democrats in Congress became more liberal on average, the Republicans became more conservative,
and the moderates from each party, who had been able to work together, were edged out. It became
increasingly likely that the party opposite the president in Congress might be more willing to challenge his
initiatives, whereas in the past it was rare for the opposition party to publicly stand against the president
in foreign policy.
Finally, several analysts have tried applying the two presidencies thesis to contemporary presidential-
congressional relationships in foreign policy. Is the two presidencies framework still valid in the more
partisan post–Cold War era? The answer is mixed. On the one hand, presidents are more successful on
foreign policy votes in the House and Senate, on average, than on domestic policy votes. However, the
gap has narrowed. Moreover, analysis has also shown that presidents are opposed more often in Congress,
even on the foreign policy votes they win.10 Democratic leaders regularly challenged Republican George
W. Bush on the Iraq War and it became common to see the most senior foreign relations committee
members of the Republican Party opposing the foreign policy positions of Democratic president Barack
646 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

Obama. Such challenging of the president by the opposition party simply didn’t happen during the Cold
War.
Therefore, it seems presidents no longer enjoy unanimous foreign policy support as they did in the early
1960s. They have to work harder to get a consensus and are more likely to face opposition. Still, because
of their formal powers in foreign policy, presidents are overall more successful on foreign policy than on
domestic policy.

THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBERS

Congress is a bicameral legislative institution with 100 senators serving in the Senate and 435
representatives serving in the House. How interested in foreign policy are typical House and Senate
members?
While key White House, executive, and legislative leaders monitor and regularly weigh in on foreign
policy matters, the fact is that individual representatives and senators do so much less often. Unless
there is a foreign policy crisis, legislators in Congress tend to focus on domestic matters, mainly because
there is not much to be gained with their constituents by pursuing foreign policy matters.11 Domestic
policy matters resonate more strongly with the voters at home. A sluggish economy, increasing health
care costs, and crime matter more to them than U.S. policy toward North Korea, for example. In an open-
ended Gallup poll question from early 2016 about the “most important problem” in the United States,
fewer than 15 percent of respondents named a foreign policy topic (half of those respondents mentioned
immigration). These results suggest that foreign policy is not at the top of many voters’ minds. In the
end, legislators must be responsive to constituents in order to be good representatives and to achieve
reelection.12
However, some House and Senate members do wade into foreign policy matters. First, congressional party
leaders in the majority and minority parties speak on behalf of their institution and their party on all types
of issues, including foreign policy. Some House and Senate members ask to serve on the foreign policy
committees, such as the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
and the two defense committees (Figure 17.13). These members might have military bases within their
districts or states and hence have a constituency reason for being interested in foreign policy. Legislators
might also simply have a personal interest in foreign policy matters that drives their engagement in the
issue. Finally, they may have ambitions to move into an executive branch position that deals with foreign
policy matters, such as secretary of state or defense, CIA director, or even president.

Figure 17.13 Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) (a), the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and
Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) (b), the ranking Democrat on the committee, each addressed Secretary of State John
Kerry during the February 2016 discussion of the Obama administration’s 2017 federal budget hearings. (credit a, b:
modification of work by the U.S. Department of State)

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 647

Get Connected!

Let People Know What You Think!

Most House and Senate members do not engage in foreign policy because there is no electoral benefit to
doing so. Thus, when citizens become involved, House members and senators will take notice. Research by
John Kingdon on roll-call voting and by Richard Hall on committee participation found that when constituents
are activated, their interest becomes salient to a legislator and he or she will respond.13
One way you can become active in the foreign policy realm is by writing a letter or e-mail to your House
member and/or your two U.S. senators about what you believe the U.S. foreign policy approach in a particular
area ought to be. Perhaps you want the United States to work with other countries to protect dolphins from
being accidentally trapped in tuna nets. You can also state your position in a letter to the editor of your local
newspaper, or post an opinion on the newspaper’s website where a related article or op-ed piece appears. You
can share links to news coverage on Facebook or Twitter and consider joining a foreign policy interest group
such as Greenpeace.
When you engaged in foreign policy discussion as suggested above, what type of response did you receive?

Link to Learning

For more information on the two key congressional committees on U.S. foreign
policy, visit the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
(https://openstaxcollege.org/l/29SeCoFrRel) and the House Foreign Affairs
Committee (https://openstaxcollege.org/l/29HoForAfCom) websites.

THE MANY ACTORS IN FOREIGN POLICY

A variety of actors carry out the various and complex activities of U.S. foreign policy: White House staff,
executive branch staff, and congressional leaders.
The White House staff members engaged in foreign policy are likely to have very regular contact with the
president about their work. The national security advisor heads the president’s National Security Council,
a group of senior-level staff from multiple foreign policy agencies, and is generally the president’s top
foreign policy advisor. Also reporting to the president in the White House is the director of the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA). Even more important on intelligence than the CIA director is the director of
national intelligence, a position created in the government reorganizations after 9/11, who oversees the
entire intelligence community in the U.S. government. The Joint Chiefs of Staff consist of six members,
one each from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, plus a chair and vice chair. The chair of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff is the president’s top uniformed military officer. In contrast, the secretary of defense
is head of the entire Department of Defense but is a nonmilitary civilian. The U.S. trade representative
develops and directs the country’s international trade agenda. Finally, within the Executive Office of the
President, another important foreign policy official is the director of the president’s Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). The OMB director develops the president’s yearly budget proposal, including funding
for the foreign policy agencies and foreign aid.
In addition to those who work directly in the White House or Executive Office of the President, several
important officials work in the broader executive branch and report to the president in the area of foreign
policy. Chief among these is the secretary of state. The secretary of state is the nation’s chief diplomat,
serves in the president’s cabinet, and oversees the Foreign Service. The secretary of defense, who is
the civilian (nonmilitary) head of the armed services housed in the Department of Defense, is also a
648 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

key cabinet member for foreign policy (as mentioned above). A third cabinet secretary, the secretary
of homeland security, is critically important in foreign policy, overseeing the massive Department of
Homeland Security (Figure 17.14).

Figure 17.14

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 649

Insider Perspective

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

Former secretary of defense Robert Gates served under both Republican and Democratic presidents. First
Gates rose through the ranks of the CIA to become the director during the George H. W. Bush administration.
He then left government to serve as an academic administrator at Texas A&M University in College Station,
Texas, where he rose to the position of university president. He was able to win over reluctant faculty and
advance the university’s position, including increasing the faculty at a time when budgets were in decline
in Texas. Then, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resigned, President George W. Bush invited
Gates to return to government service as Rumsfeld’s replacement. Gates agreed, serving in that capacity for
the remainder of the Bush years and then for several years in the Obama administration before retiring from
government service a second time (Figure 17.15). He has generally been seen as thorough, systematic, and
fair.

Figure 17.15 In March 2011, then-secretary of defense Robert Gates (left) held talks with Afghan president
Hamid Karzai in Kabul, Afghanistan. (credit: Cherie Cullen)

In his memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,14 Secretary Gates takes issue with the actions of both
the presidents for whom he worked, but ultimately he praises them for their service and for upholding the right
principles in protecting the United States and U.S. military troops. In this and earlier books, Gates discusses
the need to have an overarching plan but says plans cannot be too tight or they will fail when things change
in the external environment. After leaving politics, Gates served as president of the Boy Scouts of America,
where he presided over the change in policy that allowed openly gay scouts and leaders, an issue with which
he had had experience as secretary of defense under President Obama. In that role Gates oversaw the end of
the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.15
What do you think about a cabinet secretary serving presidents from two different political parties? Is this is a
good idea? Why or why not?

The final group of official key actors in foreign policy are in the U.S. Congress. The Speaker of the House,
the House minority leader, and the Senate majority and minority leaders are often given updates on
foreign policy matters by the president or the president’s staff. They are also consulted when the president
needs foreign policy support or funding. However, the experts in Congress who are most often called on
for their views are the committee chairs and the highest-ranking minority members of the relevant House
and Senate committees. In the House, that means the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Committee on
Armed Services. In the Senate, the relevant committees are the Committee on Foreign Relations and the
Armed Services Committee. These committees hold regular hearings on key foreign policy topics, consider
budget authorizations, and debate the future of U.S. foreign policy.
650 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

17.4 Approaches to Foreign Policy

Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Explain classic schools of thought on U.S. foreign policy
• Describe contemporary schools of thought on U.S. foreign policy
• Delineate the U.S. foreign policy approach with Russia and China

Frameworks and theories help us make sense of the environment of governance in a complex area like
foreign policy. A variety of schools of thought exist about how to approach foreign policy, each with
different ideas about what “should” be done. These approaches also vary in terms of what they assume
about human nature, how many other countries ought to be involved in U.S. foreign policy, and what the
tenor of foreign policymaking ought to be. They help us situate the current U.S. approach to many foreign
policy challenges around the world.

CLASSIC APPROACHES
A variety of traditional concepts of foreign policy remain helpful today as we consider the proper role of
the United States in, and its approach to, foreign affairs. These include isolationism, the idealism versus
realism debate, liberal internationalism, hard versus soft power, and the grand strategy of U.S. foreign
policy.
From the end of the Revolutionary War in the late eighteenth century until the early twentieth century,
isolationism—whereby a country stays out of foreign entanglements and keeps to itself—was a popular
stance in U.S. foreign policy. Among the founders, Thomas Jefferson especially was an advocate of
isolationism or non-involvement. He thought that by keeping to itself, the United States stood a better
chance of becoming a truly free nation. This fact is full of irony, because Jefferson later served as
ambassador to France and president of the United States, both roles that required at least some attention
to foreign policy. Still, Jefferson’s ideas had broad support. After all, Europe was where volatile changes
were occurring. The new nation was tired of war, and there was no reason for it to be entangled militarily
with anyone. Indeed, in his farewell address, President George Washington famously warned against the
creation of “entangling alliances.”16
Despite this legacy, the United States was pulled squarely into world affairs with its entry into World
War I. But between the Armistice in 1918 that ended that war and U.S. entry into World War II in 1941,
isolationist sentiment returned, based on the idea that Europe should learn to govern its own affairs. Then,
after World War II, the United States engaged the world stage as one of two superpowers and the military
leader of Europe and the Pacific. Isolationism never completely went away, but now it operated in the
background. Again, Europe seemed to be the center of the problem, while political life in the United States
seemed calmer somehow.
The end of the Cold War opened up old wounds as a variety of smaller European countries sought
independence and old ethnic conflicts reappeared. Some in the United States felt the country should again
be isolationist as the world settled into a new political arrangement, including a vocal senator, Jesse Helms
(R-NC), who was against the United States continuing to be the military “policeman” of the world. Helms
was famous for opposing nearly all treaties brought to the Senate during his tenure. Congressman Ron
Paul (R-TX) and his son Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) were both isolationist candidates for the presidency (in
2008 and 2016, respectively); both thought the United States should retreat from foreign entanglements,
spend far less on military and foreign policy, and focus more on domestic issues.
At the other end of the spectrum is liberal internationalism. Liberal internationalism advocates a foreign
policy approach in which the United States becomes proactively engaged in world affairs. Its adherents

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 651

assume that liberal democracies must take the lead in creating a peaceful world by cooperating as
a community of nations and creating effective world structures such as the United Nations. To fully
understand liberal internationalism, it is helpful to understand the idealist versus realist debate in
international relations. Idealists assume the best in others and see it as possible for countries to run the
world together, with open diplomacy, freedom of the seas, free trade, and no militaries. Everyone will take
care of each other. There is an element of idealism in liberal internationalism, because the United States
assumes other countries will also put their best foot forward. A classic example of a liberal internationalist
is President Woodrow Wilson, who sought a League of Nations to voluntarily save the world after World
War I.
Realists assume that others will act in their own self-interest and hence cannot necessarily be trusted.
They want a healthy military and contracts between countries in case others want to wiggle out of their
commitments. Realism also has a place in liberal internationalism, because the United States approaches
foreign relationships with open eyes and an emphasis on self-preservation.
Soft power, or diplomacy, with which the United States often begins a foreign policy relationship or
entanglement, is in line with liberal internationalism and idealism, while hard power, which allows the
potential for military force, is the stuff of realism. For example, at first the United States was rather
isolationist in its approach to China, assuming it was a developing country of little impact that could safely
be ignored. Then President Nixon opened up China as an area for U.S. investment, and an era of open
diplomatic relations began in the early 1970s (Figure 17.16). As China modernized and began to dominate
the trade relationship with the United States, many came to see it through a realist lens and to consider
whether China’s behavior really warranted its beneficial most-favored-nation trading status.

Figure 17.16 President Nixon and First Lady Patricia Nixon visited the Great Wall on their 1972 trip to China. The
Chinese showed them the sights and hosted a banquet for them in the Great Hall of the People. Nixon was the first
U.S. president to visit China following the Communist victory in the civil war in 1949. (credit: National Archives and
Records Administration)

The final classic idea of foreign policy is the so-called grand strategy—employing all available diplomatic,
economic, and military resources to advance the national interest. The grand strategy invokes the
possibility of hard power, because it relies on developing clear strategic directions for U.S. foreign policy
and the methods to achieve those goals, often with military capability attached. The U.S. foreign policy
plan in Europe and Asia after World War II reflects a grand strategy approach. In order to stabilize the
world, the United States built military bases in Italy, Germany, Spain, England, Belgium, Japan, Guam, and
652 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

Korea. It still operates nearly all these, though often under a multinational arrangement such as NATO.
These bases help preserve stability on the one hand, and U.S. influence on the other.

MORE RECENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHTS

Two particular events in foreign policy caused many to change their views about the proper approach
to U.S. involvement in world affairs. First, the debacle of U.S. involvement in the civil war in Vietnam
in the years leading up to 1973 caused many to rethink the country’s traditional containment approach
to the Cold War. Containment was the U.S. foreign policy goal of limiting the spread of communism.
In Vietnam the United States supported one governing faction within the country (democratic South
Vietnam), whereas the Soviet Union supported the opposing governing faction (communist North
Vietnam). The U.S. military approach of battlefield engagement did not translate well to the jungles of
Vietnam, where “guerilla warfare” predominated.
Skeptics became particularly pessimistic about liberal internationalism given how poorly the conflict in
Vietnam had played out. U.S. military forces withdrew from South Vietnam in 1973, and Saigon, its capital,
fell to North Vietnam and the communists eighteen months later. Many of those pessimists then became
neoconservatives on foreign policy.
Neoconservatives believe that rather than exercising restraint and always using international
organizations as the path to international outcomes, the United States should aggressively use its might
to promote its values and ideals around the world. The aggressive use (or threat) of hard power is the
core value of neoconservatism. Acting unilaterally is acceptable in this view, as is adopting a preemptive
strategy in which the United States intervenes militarily before the enemy can make its move. Preemption
is a new idea; the United States has tended to be retaliatory in its use of military force, as in the case of Pearl
Harbor at the start of World War II. Examples of neoconservativism in action are the 1980s U.S. campaigns
in Central American countries to turn back communism under President Ronald Reagan, the Iraq War of
2003 led by President George W. Bush and his vice president Dick Cheney (Figure 17.17), and the use of
drones as counterterrorism weapons during the Obama administration.

Figure 17.17 Heading to a going-away party for departing defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld in December 2006,
former president George W. Bush (left) walks with then-vice president (and former secretary of defense) Dick Cheney
(center), the prototypical twenty-first century foreign policy neoconservative. Rumsfeld is on the right. (credit:
modification of work by D. Myles Cullen)

Neo-isolationism, like earlier isolationism, advocates keeping free of foreign entanglements. Yet no
advanced industrial democracy completely separates itself from the rest of the world. Foreign markets
beckon, tourism helps spur economic development at home and abroad, and global environmental
challenges require cross-national conversation. In the twenty-first century, neo-isolationism means
distancing the United States from the United Nations and other international organizations that get in the
way. The strategy of selective engagement—retaining a strong military presence and remaining engaged

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 653

across the world through alliances and formal installations—is used to protect the national security
interests of the United States. However, this strategy also seeks to avoid being the world’s policeman.
The second factor that changed minds about twenty-first century foreign policy is the rise of elusive new
enemies who defy traditional designations. Rather than countries, these enemies are terrorist groups such
as al-Qaeda and ISIS (or ISIL) that spread across national boundaries. A hybrid approach to U.S. foreign
policy that uses multiple schools of thought as circumstances warrant may thus be the wave of the future.
President Obama often took a hybrid approach. In some respects, he was a liberal internationalist seeking
to put together broad coalitions to carry out world business. At the same time, his sending teams of troops
and drones to take out terrorist targets in other legitimate nation-states without those states’ approval fits
with a neoconservative approach. Finally, his desire to not be the “world’s policeman” led him to follow a
practice of selective engagement.

Link to Learning

Several interest groups debate what should happen in U.S. foreign policy, many of
which are included in this list (https://openstaxcollege.org/l/29CFRthinktk)
compiled by the Council on Foreign Relations.

U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN THE COLD WAR AND WITH CHINA

The foreign policy environment from the end of World War II until the end of the Cold War in 1990 was
dominated by a duel of superpowers between the United States and its Western allies on the one hand
and the Soviet Union and the communist bloc of countries in the East on the other. Both superpowers
developed thousands of weapons of mass destruction and readied for a potential world war to be fought
with nuclear weapons. That period was certainly challenging and ominous at times, but it was simpler
than the present era. Nations knew what team they were on, and there was generally an incentive to not go
to war because it would lead to the unthinkable—the end of the Earth as we know it, or mutually assured
destruction. The result of this logic, essentially a standoff between the two powers, is sometime referred to
as nuclear deterrence.
When the Soviet Union imploded and the Cold War ended, it was in many ways a victory for the West and
for democracy. However, once the bilateral nature of the Cold War was gone, dozens of countries sought
independence and old ethnic conflicts emerged in several regions of the world, including Eastern Europe.
This new era holds great promise, but it is in many ways more complex than the Cold War. The rise of
cross-national terrorist organizations further complicates the equation because the enemy hides within
the borders of potentially dozens of countries around the globe. In summary, the United States pursues a
variety of topics and goals in different areas of the world in the twenty-first century.
The Soviet Union dissolved into many component parts after the Cold War, including Russia, various
former Soviet republics like Georgia and Ukraine, and smaller nation-states in Eastern Europe, such as
the Czech Republic. The general approach of the United States has been to encourage the adoption of
democracy and economic reforms in these former Eastern bloc countries. Many of them now align with
the EU and even with the West’s cross-national military organization, NATO. With freedoms can come
conflict, and there has been much of that in these fledgling countries as opposition coalitions debate how
the future course should be charted, and by whom. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is again trying
to strengthen its power on the country’s western border, testing expansionism while invoking Russian
nationalism. The United States is adopting a defensive position and trying to prevent the spread of Russian
influence. The EU and NATO factor in here from the standpoint of an internationalist approach.
654 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

In many ways the more visible future threat to the United States is China, the potential rival superpower
of the future. A communist state that has also encouraged much economic development, China has been
growing and modernizing for more than thirty years. Its nearly 1.4 billion citizens are stepping onto
the world economic stage with other advanced industrial nations. In addition to fueling an explosion
of industrial domestic development, public and private Chinese investors have spread their resources to
every continent and most countries of the world. Indeed, Chinese investors lend money to the United
States government on a regular basis, as U.S. domestic borrowing capacity is pushed to the limit in most
years.
Many in the United States are worried by the lack of freedom and human rights in China. During the
Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing on June 4, 1989, thousands of pro-democracy protestors were
arrested and many were killed as Chinese authorities fired into the crowd and tanks crushed people who
attempted to wall them out. Over one thousand more dissidents were arrested in the following weeks
as the Chinese government investigated the planning of the protests in the square. The United States
instituted minor sanctions for a time, but President George H. W. Bush chose not to remove the most-
favored-nation trading status of this long-time economic partner. Most in the U.S. government, including
leaders in both political parties, wish to engage China as an economic partner at the same time that they
keep a watchful eye on its increasing influence around the world, especially in developing countries.
Elsewhere in Asia, the United States has good relationships with most other countries, especially South
Korea and Japan, which have both followed paths the United States favored after World War II. Both
countries embraced democracy, market-oriented economies, and the hosting of U.S. military bases to
stabilize the region. North Korea, however, is another matter. A closed, communist, totalitarian regime,
North Korea has been testing nuclear bombs in recent decades, to the concern of the rest of the world. Like
China many decades earlier, India is a developing country with a large population that is expanding and
modernizing. Unlike China, India has embraced democracy, especially at the local level.

Link to Learning

You can plot U.S. government attention to different types of policy matters (including
international affairs and foreign aid and its several dozen more focused subtopics) by
using the online trend analysis tool (https://openstaxcollege.org/l/29ComAgen)
at the Comparative Agendas Project.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 655

Key Terms

balance of power a situation in which no one nation or region is much more powerful militarily than any
other in the world

balance of trade the relationship between a country’s inflow and outflow of goods

Cold War the period from shortly after World War II until approximately 1989–1990 when advanced
industrial democracies divided behind the two superpowers (East: Soviet Union, West: United States)
and the fear of nuclear war abounded

congressional executive agreement an international agreement that is not a treaty and that is negotiated
by the president and approved by a simple majority of the House and Senate

containment the effort by the United States and Western European allies, begun during the Cold War, to
prevent the spread of communism

diplomacy the establishment and maintenance of a formal relationship between countries

foreign policy a government’s goals in dealing with other countries or regions and the strategy used to
achieve them

free trade a policy in which a country allows the unfettered flow of goods and services between itself
and other countries

hard power the use or threat of military power to influence the behavior of another country

isolationism a foreign policy approach that advocates a nation’s staying out of foreign entanglements
and keeping to itself

liberal internationalism a foreign policy approach of becoming proactively engaged in world affairs by
cooperating in a community of nations

neo-isolationism a policy of distancing the United States from the United Nations and other
international organizations, while still participating in the world economy

neoconservatism the belief that, rather than exercising restraint, the United States should aggressively
use its might to promote its values and ideals around the world

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) a cross-national military organization with bases in
Belgium and Germany formed to maintain stability in Europe

protectionism a policy in which a country does not permit other countries to sell goods and services
within its borders or charges them very high tariffs (import taxes) to do so

selective engagement a policy of retaining a strong military presence and remaining engaged across the
world

soft power nonmilitary tools used to influence another country, such as economic sanctions

sole executive agreement an international agreement that is not a treaty and that is negotiated and
approved by the president acting alone

treaty an international agreement entered by the United States that requires presidential negotiation with
other nation(s), consent by two-thirds of the Senate, and final ratification by the president
656 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

two presidencies thesis the thesis by Wildavsky that there are two distinct presidencies, one for foreign
and one for domestic policy, and that presidents are more successful in foreign than domestic policy

United Nations (UN) an international organization of nation-states that seeks to promote peace,
international relations, and economic and environmental programs

Summary

17.1 Defining Foreign Policy

As the president, Congress, and others carry out U.S. foreign policy in the areas of trade, diplomacy,
defense, intelligence, foreign aid, and global environmental policy, they pursue a variety of objectives and
face a multitude of challenges. The four main objectives of U.S. foreign policy are the protection of the
United States and its citizens and allies, the assurance of continuing access to international resources and
markets, the preservation of a balance of power in the world, and the protection of human rights and
democracy.
The challenges of the massive and complex enterprise of U.S. foreign policy are many. First, there exists no
true world-level authority dictating how the nations of the world should relate to one another. A second
challenge is the widely differing views among countries about the role of government in people’s lives.
A third is other countries’ varying ideas about the appropriate form of government. A fourth challenge is
that many new foreign policy issues transcend borders. Finally, the varying conditions of the countries in
the world affect what is possible in foreign policy and diplomatic relations.

17.2 Foreign Policy Instruments

U.S. foreign policy outputs vary considerably. At one end of the continuum are sharply focused outputs
such as the presidential use of military force via a specific drone strike on an enemy target, or the forging of
a presidential summit with another country’s president or head of state. At the other end of the spectrum
are broadly focused outputs that typically bring more involvement from the Congress and other world
leaders, such as the process to formalize a multilateral treaty on the global environment or the process to
finalize the U.S. diplomatic budget each fiscal year. Broadly focused outputs typically take more time to
decide, involve more nation-states, are more expensive, and are quite difficult to reverse once in place.
Sharply focused outputs are faster, tend to be led by the president, and are easier for future policymakers
to undo.

17.3 Institutional Relations in Foreign Policy

Many aspects of foreign policymaking rely on the powers shared between Congress and the president,
including foreign policy appointments and the foreign affairs budget. Within the executive branch, an
array of foreign policy leaders report directly to the president. Foreign policy can at times seem fragmented
and diffuse because of the complexity of actors and topics. However, the president is clearly the leader,
having both formal authority and the ability to delegate to Congress, as explained in the two presidencies
thesis. With this leadership, presidents at times can make foreign policymaking quick and decisive,
especially when it calls for executive agreements and the military use of force.

17.4 Approaches to Foreign Policy

Classic theories of foreign policy divide into the isolationist camp and the internationalist camp. The use
of hard versus soft power comes into play in the internationalist route. Neoconservatism, a more recent
school of thought in foreign policy, takes the view that the United States should go it alone as a single
superpower, retreating from foreign involvement with the exception of trade and economic policy.
In the end, the complexity of international relationships, combined with a multifaceted decision-making
process and a multiplicity of actors, leads to a U.S. foreign policy approach that uses a bit of all the schools
of thought. The United States is being neoconservative when drone strikes are carried out unilaterally
within the boundaries of another sovereign nation. It is being internationalist when building a coalition on
the Iran nuclear deal or when participating in NATO initiatives.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13

Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy 657

Review Questions

1. Why are foreign policy issues more 8. The federal budget process matters in foreign
complicated than domestic policy issues? policy for all the following reasons except
a. They are more specific. ________.
b. They are more complex. a. Congress has the power of the purse, so the
c. The international environment is president needs its approval
unpredictable. b. the budget provides the funding needed to
d. They are more expensive. run the foreign policy agencies
c. the budget for every presidential action has
2. Which of the following is not a foreign policy to be approved in advance
type? d. the budget allows political institutions to
a. trade policy increase funding in key new areas
b. intelligence policy
c. war-making 9. Which types of foreign policy outputs have
d. bureaucratic oversight more impact, broadly conceived ones or sharply
focused ones? Why?
3. The goals of U.S. foreign policy include
________. 10. In terms of formal powers in the realm of
a. keeping the country safe foreign policy, ________.
b. securing access to foreign markets a. the president is entirely in charge
c. protecting human rights b. the president and Congress share power
d. all the above c. Congress is entirely in charge
d. decisions are delegated to experts in the
4. What are two key differences between bureaucracy
domestic policymaking and foreign
policymaking? 11. Why do House members and senators tend to
be less active on foreign policy matters than
5. A sole executive agreement is likely to be in domestic ones?
effect longer than is a treaty. a. Foreign policy matters are more technical
a. true and difficult.
b. false b. Legislators do not want to offend certain
immigrant groups within their
6. All the following are examples of sharply constituency.
focused foreign policy outputs except ________. c. Constituents are more directly affected by
a. presidential summits domestic policy topics than foreign ones.
b. military uses of force d. Legislators themselves are not interested in
c. emergency spending measures foreign policy matters.
d. international agreements
12. Neoconservativism is an isolationist foreign
7. The War Powers Resolution ________. policy approach of a nation keeping to itself and
a. strengthened congressional war powers engaging less internationally.
b. strengthened presidential war powers a. true
c. affected the presidency and congress b. false
equally
d. ultimately had little impact on war-making 13. President George W. Bush was a proponent of
liberal internationalism in his foreign policy.
a. true
b. false
658 Chapter 17 | Foreign Policy

14. The U.S. policy of containment during the 15. The use of drones within other countries’
Cold War related to keeping ________. borders is consistent with which school of
a. terrorism from spreading thought?
b. rogue countries like North Korea from a. liberal internationalism
developing nuclear weapons b. neoconservativism
c. communism from spreading c. neo-isolationism
d. oil prices from rising d. grand strategy

16. What are the pros and cons of the

neoconservative foreign policy approach followed
in recent decades?

Critical Thinking Questions

17. In your view, what are the best ways to get the community of nations working together?

18. What are the three most important foreign policy issues facing the United States today? Why?

19. Which is more important as an influencer of foreign policy, the president or a cabinet department like
the Department of State or Defense? Why?

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

21. 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?

Suggestions for Further Study

Brands, H. William. 1994. The United States in the World: A History of American Foreign Policy. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Howell, William G. and Jon C. Pevehouse. 2007. While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential
War Powers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Krutz, Glen S. and Jeffrey S. Peake. 2009. Treaty Politics and the Rise of Executive Agreements: International
Commitments in a System of Shared Powers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Nye, Joseph S. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.13