Download U.S. Foreign Policy: Foundations and Consequences and more Summaries Workplace Safety in PDF only on Docsity!
POL 14, 2020-
U.S. Foreign Policy: Foundations and Consequences
Paper Organiser Dr. Mark Shirk Department of Politics and International Studies Alison Richard Building 132 mas291@cam.ac.uk
Lecturer Dr. Daniel Larsen Department of Politics and International Studies Alison Richard Building 102 drl37@cam.ac.uk
Supervisors
Supervisor 1 Supervisor 2 Supervisor 3
PAPER DESCRIPTION
By almost any measure, the United States has been the most powerful country in the world since
- Due to its standing, the U.S. is centrally involved with almost every important international political issue, ranging from the international security and economic arenas to transnational issues such as climate change and human rights regimes. For these reasons, the factors which shape U.S. foreign policy are of concern to people around the globe. This paper is designed to develop students’ understanding of these factors, both historically and in their present state. It will familiarize students with important literature and debates on the intellectual and cultural foundations of U.S. foreign policy, including anti-statism, liberalism, and illiberal assumptions used to legitimize continental and, eventually, hemispheric domination. It will address the development of American political institutions and their involvement in foreign affairs. This includes the balance between the presidency and the Congress as established in the Constitution and practice; workings of the foreign policy bureaucracy; the impact of public opinion on political leaders and vice versa; and the sometimes pluralistic, sometimes oligarchic constellation of interest groups which foreign policymakers must heed. It will examine significant aspects of U.S. foreign policy towards different regions of the world, especially since
- The role the U.S. plays vis-à-vis five pertinent contemporary issues will be discussed: nuclear weapons, terrorism, climate change, the global economy, and international law. Lastly, the paper will cover debates over the nature and consequences of U.S. power and the potential decline of the U.S. relative to other states.
OBJECTIVES
- to understand how multiple different intellectual traditions, some complementary and some competing, have shaped U.S. foreign policy
- to appreciate the multi-level impacts that individuals, domestic institutions, and the international political system have had on U.S. foreign policy, and vice versa
- to familiarise students with different theories with which to interpret evidence that might explain how U.S. foreign policy has developed and operates at present
- to discern the relative strengths and weaknesses of different theories that purport to explain various episodes of U.S. foreign policy
- to introduce students to different methods used to analyze U.S. foreign policy, from historical case studies to quantitative analysis of public opinion
- to gain detailed knowledge of U.S. relations with at least two global regions
- to teach students how to situate their own arguments within wider debates related to U.S. power and influence in the world, while distinguishing their arguments from those on which they draw
MODE OF TEACHING & ASSESSMENT
In Michaelmas, students will have 3 supervisions and 1 seminar. Students will be allocated a supervisor at the beginning of Michaelmas term, and should contact the course organizer if any problems occur. For each supervision, students should prepare a 2000 word essay. For the seminar, there is no written work but students should be prepared to discuss the readings. Supervision topics will be chosen by or in concert with your supervisor. All essays will be from the supervision topics listed at the end of each module. If you want to go beyond this please discuss with your supervisor.
In Easter term, we will have a revision seminar, and each student will have one revision supervision. Powerpoint slides and will have been uploaded to the Moodle website throughout Michaelmas and Lent, available to all students enrolled in the paper.
Students will be assessed via a divided three-hour essay examination, from which students will be asked to answer three questions. There will be two sections, and students must answer at least one question from each section. Section A will consist of questions from Parts I, II, and V of the paper. Section B will have questions on the different regions and issues discussed in Parts III and IV. There is also a sample exam at the end of this paper guide.
READINGS
The following books should be available at your college libraries or the Seeley Library. Primary readings for the class from each (denoted below) will appear at some point in the paper guide. Given the circumstances, I realize that many of you are looking to do readings online. All journal articles and many books are available without going into a library. If you are not comfortable going into a library, your supervisor and I will work with you to either get you a particular reading OR suggest some good alternatives from the recommended readings list.
Recommended readings (also denoted below) do not need to be read prior to class, but may prove valuable to you as you revise supervision essays and prepare for the final exam. For recommended readings, I have listed what I believe to be the most important chapters in books, though you are free to read more from titles you find especially relevant and interesting. You cannot possibly cover all the material listed here. Think of it as a useful bibliography, parts of which you will investigate more deeply than others.
Recommended: McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State , chs. 5-8 (criticizing the liberalism of the “New Testament” of U.S. foreign policy) Colin Dueck, Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand Strategy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), chs. 1-2 (liberalism and variations in international threats interact to inform grand strategy) [available as an electronic resource] Henry R. Nau, At Home Abroad: Identity and Power in American Foreign Policy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002), chs. 1-2 (is American identity opposed to the “Old World”?) Brendan Rittenhouse Green, “Two Concepts of Liberty: US Cold War Grand Strategies and the Liberal Tradition,” International Security , Vol. 37, No. 2 (2012), pp. 9- (invoking Isiah Berlin’s concepts of negative and positive liberty to explain shifts in US foreign affairs strategy). Thomas J. Knock, To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), chs. 7-8 (a biography of the quintessential American liberal internationalist) John G. Ruggie, “Past as Prologue? Interests, Identity, and American Foreign Policy,” International Security , Vol. 21, No. 4 (1997), pp. 89-125 (how identity informs U.S. foreign policy at critical historical junctures) Tony Smith, America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pt. 1 (attributing the global spread of democracy to U.S. engagement in foreign affairs) [available as an electronic resource] Michael Clarke and Anthony Ricketts, “Shielding the Republic: Barack Obama and the Jeffersonian Tradition of American Foreign Policy,” Diplomacy and Statecraft , Vol. 28, No. 3 (2017): 494-517 (an alternative to the Jacksonian paradigm described by Mead) Michael Clarke & Anthony Ricketts, “Donald Trump and American foreign policy: The return of the Jacksonian tradition” Comparative Strategy 36/4 (2017), pp.366-379.
2. Themes from the Revolutionary Era – Dan Larsen
McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State , chs. 1-2 (looking at and complicating themes of “exceptionalism” and “isolationism”) Mead, Special Providence , ch. 2 (do the multiple ideologies informing U.S. foreign policy make for incoherency?) [available as an electronic resource] Hendrickson, Union, Nation, or Empire , pt. 2, “The Age of Revolution and War” (neat historical overview)
Recommended: Washington’s Farewell Address, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp (no foreign entanglements! Unilateralism or isolationism?) Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 70, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp (the importance of a “unitary executive” for action) Patrick J. Garrity, “The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates,” www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-pacificus-helvidius-debates / (does the president or Congress have the authority to declare the U.S. a neutral party to a dispute? Even Hamilton and Madison couldn’t agree) Daniel H. Deudney, “ The Philadelphian System: Sovereignty, Arms Control, and Balance of Power in the American States-Union, circa 1787–1861,” International
Organization , Vol. 49, No. 2 (1995), pp. 191-228 (the American answer to the problem of simultaneously defending against threats abroad and tyranny at home) Brian Loveman, No Higher Law: American Foreign Policy and the Western Hemisphere since 1776 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2010), chs. 1, 12- (nothing debunks the idea of U.S. isolationism faster than reviewing the history of its foreign policy towards its neighbours) Andrew Preston, Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy (New York: Anchor Books, 2012), part I (how Christian religious thought shapes U.S. foreign relations) Scott Silverstone, Divided Union: The Politics of War in the Early American Public (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), ch. 2 (how institutional constraints explain U.S. participation, or lack thereof, in 19th-century conflicts)
3. Liberal?: Race and US Foreign Policy – Dan Larsen
Christopher Hemmer and Peter J. Katzenstein, “Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism,” International Organization , Vol. 56, No. 3 (2002), pp. 575-608 (how do racial attitudes stack up as an explanation for U.S. security commitments to different regions post-1945?) Srdjan Vucetic, “A Racialized Peace? How Britain and the U.S. Made Their Relationship Special,” Foreign Policy Analysis Vol. 7, No. 4 (2011), pp. 403-22 (unpacking Anglo- American relations) Michael C. Desch, “America’s Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in U.S. Foreign Policy,” International Security Vol. 32, No. 3 (2007/2008), pp. 7-43 (how liberal ideology can spur international conflict) Doug Stokes, “Trump, American Hegemony and the Future of the Liberal International Order,” International Affairs , Vol. 94, No. 1 (2018): 133-150 (the end of an era?)
Recommended: Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power (New York: Basic Books, 2002), preface, chs. 5-6 (acquiring dominance in the Western Hemisphere wasn’t a pretty process) David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1992), intro, ch. 1 (writing the Cold War into existence in the National Security Council) Roxanne Lynn Doty, “Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-positivist Analysis of US Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines,” International Studies Quarterly , Vol. 37, No. 3 (1993), pp. 297-320 (how ideas about racial hierarchy made certain otherwise unthinkable practices possible) Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics , second edition (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2014), ch. 4 (how women’s labour props up U.S. hegemony) Hendrickson, Union, Nation, or Empire , pt. 5, “Empire and Its Discontents” (debates over intervention and non-intervention amidst 19th century war, massacre, and expansion) Michael H. Hunt, Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), ch. 3 (more on racial hierarchy and foreign policy) Christopher Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006), ch. 1 (‘extra-regional’ hegemony in pursuit of access to foreign markets) Walter LeFeber, The American Age: U.S. Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad 1750 to
democratization,” Political Theory, Vol. 34, no. 6 (2006): 690-714 (a stinging critique comparing both ideologies) Aaron Rapport, “Unexpected Affinities? Neoconservatism’s Place in IR Theory,” Security Studies Vol. 17, No. 2 (2008), pp. 257- David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), ch. 3 (one of neoliberalism’s leading chroniclers from a Marxist perspective) [available as an electronic resource] Miles Kahler and David Lake, eds., Politics in the New Hard Times (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013), ch. 1 (after the 2008 recession, what hath neoliberalism wrought?) Kagan, Robert, and William Kristol. 2000. Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy. San Francisco, Calif.: Encounter Books, Introduction (Edited volume with many contributors that would work in the Bush Administration just a year later. A very good capsule of Neoconservative thought just before they reached power).
Supervision questions for Part I:
- How has American Exceptionalism influenced US Foreign Policy?
- How, if at all, has race influenced US Foreign Policy?
- Do neoconservatism a form of liberal foreign policy?
- Have America’s liberal tendencies had a pacifying effect on its foreign policy, or have they primarily been a cause of violent conflict?
- How might the U.S-UK relationship be different if they did not share cultural and racial identities?
- Is American Exceptionalism fundamentally anti-European?
Part II: Institutions, Domestic Politics, and U.S. Foreign Policy
5. Anti-Statism and the U.S. Security State – Daniel Larsen - Friedberg, In the Shadow of the Garrison State , chs. 1-3 [available as an electronic resource] (how anti-statism informed national security strategy in the Cold War) - Koh, The National Security Constitution , ch. 3 (how interpretations of the Constitution’s national security provisions changed over time) - Zegart, Flawed by Design , chs. 1, 6-7 (arguing that the enhancement national security was not necessarily the principle guiding the design of the CIA and other bodies)
Recommended: Andrew J. Bacevich, ed., The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy since World War II (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), chs. 1, 4, 6, 8 (collection of essays edited by a leading conservative and anti-interventionist) Philip A. Russo and Patrick J. Haney, “Intermestic Politics and Homeland Security,” in Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy , ch. 16 [available as an electronic resource] (blurring the lines between domestic and foreign policy) Harvey Sapolsky, Eugene Gholz, and Caitlin Talmadge, U.S. Defense Politics: The Origins of Security Policy , third edition (New York: Routledge, 2017), chs. 1-2 (a leading textbook on the nuts and bolts of America’s defense politics) Douglas T. Stuart, Creating the National Security State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), chs. 1, 6-7 (historical overview of the passage and implementation of the 1947 National Security Act) [available as an electronic resource Andrew Preston, “Monsters Everywhere: A Genealogy of National Security”,
Diplomatic History 38/3(2014), pp. 477–500. (Critiquing the impact of the emergence of the concept of “national security” in the 1940s) Dexter Fergie, “Geopolitics Turned Inwards: The Princeton Military Studies Group and the National Security Imagination” Diplomatic History 43/4 (2019) 644-670. (Considerable further insight into the origins of the concept of “national security”)
- Conveniently summarized in Dexter Fergie, “The Strange Career of National Security”, The Atlantic , 29 September 2019. 6. U.S. Intelligence and Secrecy – Daniel Larsen
- Christopher Andrew, For the President’s Eyes Only (London, 1995), esp chs. 5, 7, 9, 12 (Trailblazing study of the history of U.S. intelligence)
- David Pozen, “The Leaky Leviathan: Why the Government Condemns and Condones Unlawful Disclosures of Information,” Harvard Law Review 127, no. 2 (2013), pp.512-521, 528-534, 542-551, 558-589, 594-596, 633-635. (A fascinating study of the ecosystem of leaks in the U.S. government—the page numbers have been selected to skip the more legalistic parts of the article)
Recommended: Andrew, Aldrich, and Wark (eds.) Secret Intelligence: A Reader (two editions, one in 2009, and the second in 2019) In the first edition: see esp. chs. 1-2, 8, 11-13 (an excellent standard intelligence reader, produced by the leading figures in intelligence studies) Christopher Andrew, The Secret World (Penguin, 2018), chs. 29-30 (a seminal account of intelligence throughout all of human history) Aid, “The National Security Agency and the Cold War”, Intelligence and National Security , 16/1 (2001), pp.27-66. Blight and Welch (eds.), Intelligence and the Cuban Missile Crisis (Frank Cass, 1998), ch. 2. Gustafson, Hostile Intent (Washington, 2007), esp. ch. 7. (an account of the CIA and the 1973 coup in Chile that, contrary to popular belief, argues that the CIA had little to do with the coup)
- See also: Zakia Shiraz, “Review: CIA Intervention in Chile and the Fall of the Allende Government in 1973”, Journal of American Studies 45/3 (2011), pp. 603-613. (Review of a trio of works on the fall of Allende, including Gustafson’s) “Anglo-American Intelligence and the Soviet War Scare: The Untold Story”, Intelligence and National Security 27/1 (2012), pp.75-92. (a good case study of the US- UK intelligence alliance in practice) Richelson, The U.S. Intelligence Community (7th^ Edition, New York, 2016), chs. 1-2 and 8 (a useful nuts-and-bolts handbook for the organization of the intelligence community; older editions of this book are also fine—please read the first two chapters and the chapter on signals intelligence) Dahl, Intelligence and Surprise Attack (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2013), chs. 5-8. Russell, Sharpening Strategic Intelligence , (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Dana Priest & William M. Arkin, Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State. (A three-part article series originally published in the Washington Post on the explosion of US intelligence since 9/11; accessible only in book form, not available online because of GDPR) Gardner, The War on Leakers (New York, 2016) vs. Schoenfeld, Necessary Secrets
David Mitchell, “Centralizing Advisory Systems: Presidential Influence and the U.S. Foreign Policy Decision‐Making Process,” Foreign Policy Analysis , Vol. 1, No. 2 (2005), pp. 181-206 (a good complement to Haney’s book) William Newmann, “Causes of Change in National Security Processes: Carter, Reagan, and Bush Decision Making on Arms Control.” Presidential Studies Quarterly , Vol. 31, No. 1 (2001), pp. 69-103 (when and why do presidents change course on national security matters?) William G. Howell and Jon C. Pevehouse, “Presidents, Congress, and the Use of Force,” International Organization , Vol. 59, No. 1 (2005), pp. 209-32 (a good complement to Kriner’s book) Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents (New York: The Free Press, 1990), ch. 3 (a classic; Neustadt argues that presidential power is the power to persuade, not bully) Elizabeth Saunders, “Transformative Choices: Leaders and the Origins of Intervention Strategy,” International Security , Vol. 34, No. 2 (2009), pp. 119-61 (the importance of president’s personal beliefs for military conflicts) Peter Trubowitz, Politics and Strategy: Partisan Ambition and American Statecraft (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), chs. 1-2 (how parties affect presidential ambition in foreign policy) Stephen G. Walker and Akan Malici, U.S. Presidents and Foreign Policy Mistakes (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011), ch. 2 (presidential mistakes? Gee, I can’t think of any…) Jeremi Suri, The Impossible Presidency: The Rise and Fall of America’s Highest Office (New York: Basic Books, 2017), [read especially in conjunction with research on the bureaucracy; Suri explores the paradoxes of political power in the tradition of Lowi’s The End of Liberalism ]
8. Bureaucracy – Daniel Larsen - Graham T. Allison, “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” American Political Science Review , Vol. 63, No. 3 (1969), pp. 689-718 (seminal article arguing that disjointed bureaucratic politics affects foreign policy more than rational models expect) - David A. Welch, “The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigms: Retrospect and Prospect,” International Security , Vol. 17, No. 2 (1992), 112- (questioning Allison’s argument two decades later) - Daniel Drezner, “Ideas, Bureaucratic Politics, and the Crafting of Foreign Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (October 2000): 733-49 (why do some bureaucracies succeed in influencing foreign policy and others fail?) - Amy Zegart, “September 11 and the Adaption Failure of U.S. Intelligence Agencies,” International Security , Vol. 29, No. 4 (2005), pp. 78-111 (analysis of a major surprise attack using a bureaucratic politics framework)
Recommended: Terry M. Moe, “The New Economics of Organization,” American Journal of Political Science , Vol. 28, No. 4 (1984): 739-777 (though not explicitly about foreign policy, this is an excellent overview of the limitations that prevent political leaders from seamlessly translating bureaucratic resources into power and influence) Jonathan Bendor and Thomas H. Hammond, “Rethinking Allison’s Models,” American Political Science Review , Vol. 86, No. 2 (1992), pp. 301-22 (two economists explore the logical gaps in Allison’s work) Stephen D. Krasner, “Are Bureaucracies Important? (Or Allison Wonderland),” Foreign
Policy , No. 7 (Summer 1972), pp. 159-79 (more beating up on Allison) Richard K. Betts, Enemies of Intelligence (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), ch. 2 (intelligence agencies have inherent limitations, and strategic surprise is inevitable) Michael P. Colaresi, Democracy Declassified: The Secrecy Dilemma in National Security (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), chs. 2-3 (how congressional oversight of secretive security bureaucracies can work to enhance national security) [available as an electronic resource] Peter D. Feaver, “The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control,” Armed Forces & Society , Vol. 23, No. 2 (1996): 149- (how to make sure the guys with guns respect civilian authority) Morton H. Halperin and Priscilla A. Clapp, Bureaucratic Politics & Foreign Policy , second edition (Washington, DC: Brookings, 2006 [1974]), chs. 2-3 (a classic on par with Allison) Justin Hart, Empire of Ideas: The Origins of Public Diplomacy and the Transformation of U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), ch. 4 (how WWII changed the way U.S. diplomats thought about who their target audience should be) [available as an electronic resource] Andrew F. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), ch. 7 (how bureaucratic rigidity arguably affected military performance in Vietnam) Robert Jervis, Why Intelligence Fails: Lessons from the Iranian Revolution and the Iraq War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010), chs. 1, 4 (good complement to Betts and Zegart with theory from psychology) Robert J. McMahon, Dean Acheson and the Creation of an American World Order (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2009), ch. 3 (on one of the most influential Secretaries of State) Milner and Tingley, Sailing the Water’s Edge , ch. 5 Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), chs. 5-6 (by the former head of the CIA’s counter-terrorism center) Stefano Recchia, Reassuring the Reluctant Warriors: US Civil-military Relations and Multilateral Intervention (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015), ch. 2 (top military officers’ concerns about burden-sharing affect the composition of U.S.-led coalitions) Scott Sagan, The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), chs. 1, 5-6 (how technological complexity, organizational interdependence, and small but predictably regular errors can have catastrophic consequences)
9. Outside Influences: Public Opinion and Interest Groups – Dan Larsen - Ole R. Holsti, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann Consensus.” International Studies Quarterly , Vol. 36 (1992): 439–66 (are Americans as uninformed and unreflective about foreign policy as rumor might have it?) - Benjamin I. Page and Jason Barabas, “Foreign Policy Gaps between Citizens and Leaders,” International Studies Quarterly , Vol. 44, No. 3 (2000), pp. 339-64 (why don’t political representatives’ foreign policy preferences overlap that well with those of voters?) - Smith, Foreign Attachments, ch. 2 (how America’s multi-ethnic society affects organized interest groups and foreign policy) - Lawrence Jacobs and Benjamin Page, “Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?” American Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No. 1 (2005), pp. 107-23 (big business, as it turns out).
Kevin Narizny, “Both Guns and Butter, or Neither: Class Interests in the Political Economy of Rearmament,” American Political Science Review , Vol. 97, No. 2 (2003), pp. 203-20 (the left and the right may not be as consistently dovish/hawkish as we tend to think) Robert C. Lieberman, “The ‘Israel Lobby’ and American Politics,” and John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “The Blind Man and the Elephant in the Room: Robert Lieberman and the Israel Lobby,” both in Perspectives on Politics , Vol. 7, No. 2 (2009), pp. 235-69 (nothing controversial, just debating how much Israel and American Jews influence U.S. policy towards the Middle East. Duck and cover.) Peter Trubowitz, Defining the National Interest: Conflict and Change in American Foreign Policy (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1998), ch. 1 (different regions of the country have different economic interests, and by extension, foreign policy preferences). Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis, eds., Interest Group Politics , 8th^ edition (London: CQ Press, 2012), chs. 13-14 (Hrebenar and Thomas on the ‘China Lobby’ and McCormick on ethnic interest groups, respectively) [most recent edition also available as an electronic resource, though only accessible on designated computers in the UL]
Supervision questions for Part II:
- Did the national security institutions created after World War II represent a major departure from previous U.S. policy traditions?
- In what ways, if any, can the U.S. Congress check presidential foreign policy initiatives?
- How influential are presidential advisors when it comes to crafting foreign policy?
- How do bureaucratic standard operating procedures help and hinder efforts to secure the state?
- How do U.S. intelligence agencies inform U.S. foreign policy, and what role do they play in carrying it out?
- How important is secrecy in effectively carrying out U.S. foreign policy?
- Is the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy so large and unwieldy that it does more to hinder presidential power than enhance it?
- When are members of the American public likely to be most and least supportive of U.S. military action abroad?
- Assess the following statement: The less influence American public opinion has on U.S. foreign policy, the better.
- Does big business exert disproportionate influence over U.S. foreign policy?
Part III: US Foreign Policy around the World
10. Africa – Daniel Larsen - Noer, Cold War and Black Liberation , ch. 2 - Westad, The Global Cold War , chs. 1, 6 [available as an electronic resource] (despite their ideological conflict, both superpowers agreed that “third world” African countries could be remade in their respective images) - Nicholas van de Walle, “U.S. Policy towards Africa: The Bush Legacy and the Obama Administration,” African Affairs , Vol. 109, issue 434 (2010), pp. 1-21 (U.S. policy after Clinton) - Nicholas Westcott, “The Trump Administration’s Africa Policy”, African Affairs 184/473 (2019), pp.737-749.
Recommended:
Walter Clarke and Jeffrey Herbst, “Somalia and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention,” Foreign Affairs , Vol. 75, No. 1 (January/February 1996), pp. 70-85 (one of the early post-Cold War interventions led by the U.S.) Chris Alden, “From Neglect to ‘Virtual Engagement’: The United States and its New Paradigm for Africa,” African Affairs , Vol. 99, issue 396 (2000), pp. 355-71 (growing U.S. interest in Africa before September 11, 2001) Robert G. Blanton and Shannon Lindsey Blanton, “Democracy, Human Rights, and US‐ Africa Trade,” International Interactions , Vol. 27, No. 3 (2001), pp. 275-95 (finding that neither democratic governance nor human rights conditions significantly affect U.S. trade with African states. Has anything changed?) David J. Francis, ed., U.S. Strategy in Africa: AFRICOM, Terrorism and Security Challenges (New York: Routledge, 2010), chs. 1, 4-5, 9 (9/11 changed U.S. threat perception in Africa a lot). Cary Fraser, “Crossing the Color Line in Little Rock: The Eisenhower Administration and the Dilemma of Race for US Foreign Policy,” Diplomatic History , Vol. 24, No. 2 (2000): 233-64 (how U.S. treatment of African-Americans mattered for foreign policy during the Cold War) Jeffrey Herbst, “Responding to State Failure in Africa,” International Security Vol. 21, No. 3 (1997), 120-44 (U.S. concerns about “failed” or “weak” African states need to account for the historical development of sovereignty on the continent). Audie Klotz, “Norms Reconstituting Interests: Global Racial Equality and US Sanctions against South Africa,” International Organization , Vol. 49, No. 3 (1995), 451-78 (how did the U.S. contribute to the end of apartheid?) Dambisa Moyo, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is Another Way for Africa (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), pt. 1. (the road to hell is paved with good intentions and U.S. dominance of the World Bank) Ebere Nwaubani, The United States and Decolonization in West Africa, 1950- (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2001), chs. 1-2, 4 (did the U.S. act as a neo-colonial power?) Gorm Rye Olsen, “Fighting Terrorism in Africa by Proxy: The USA and the European Union in Somalia and Mali,” European Security , Vol. 23, No. 3 (2014), pp. 290- (good complement to Francis’s edited volume) Samantha Power, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 2002), ch. 10 (the book that made Obama’s ambassador to the UN famous) Peter J. Schraeder, “Cold War to Cold Peace: Explaining U.S.-French Competition in Francophone Africa,” Political Science Quarterly , Vol. 115, No. 3 (2000): 395-419 (old imperial ties versus the U.S. “ hyperpuissance ”) Robert Vitalis, White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015), intro, chs. 7- (African-American scholars challenge colonial assumptions driving early International Relations theory) Peter Woodward, U.S. Foreign Policy and the Horn of Africa (New York: Routldege, 2016), chs. 1, 5-7 (U.S. military power, ethnic conflict, and terrorism makes for a combustible trio)
12. Europe and the Cold War – Daniel Larsen - Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan , ch. 5 (one of the leading liberal theorists of international relations assesses how the U.S. and its European allies built the postwar order) [available as an electronic resource] - Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2006. Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Chs. 4,5 (Book on the creation of ‘western civlization’ as a tool to bring Germany into Europe following WWII) - Risse-Kappen, Cooperation among Democracies , ch. 2 and conclusion (a constructivist argument for why European allies had more influence on U.S. policy than realists would expect) - David A. Lake, “Beyond Anarchy: The Importance of Security Institutions,” International Security , Vol. 26, No. 1 (2001), pp. 129-60 (comparing the NATO and Warsaw Pact alliances)
Recommended: Anne Pierce, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman: Mission and Power in American Foreign Policy (Westport, Praeger Publishers, 2003), Chs. 5-6, 9-10 (Emphasizes the Wilsonian influences on U.S. policy at the outset of the Cold War) George Kennan’s “Long Telegram”, nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode- 1/kennan.htm (primary document constituting one of the cornerstones of the Cold War doctrine of “containment”) Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace, chs. 1-2 [available as an electronic resource] (the U.S., USSR, and the “German question”) John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy during the Cold War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), chs. 1-2 (Gaddis is one of the preeminent historians of Cold War foreign policy) [available as an electronic resource] Gene Gerzhoy, “Alliance Coercion and Nuclear Restraint: How the United States Thwarted West Germany's Nuclear Ambitions,” International Security Vol. 39, No. 4 (2015): 91-129 (ala Trachtenberg, Germany’s nuclear ambitions threatened to turn the Cold War “hot”, to the great fear of the U.S. and Soviet Union) Deborah Welch Larson, Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), ch. 2 (what can the psychological dispositions of Harry Truman and his advisors tell us about the causes of the Cold War?) Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), introduction (great complement to Gaddis). James McAllister, No Exit: America and the German Problem, 1943-1954 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002), chs. 1, 4 (Franklin Roosevelt didn’t want the U.S. to get “stuck” in Europe, but it may have been the only way to avoid World War III) Andrew Moravscik, The Choice for Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), ch. 3 (French competition with the U.S. for international prestige helps to drive European integration) Brian C. Rathburn, “Before Hegemony: Generalized Trust and the Creation and Design of International Security Organizations,” International Organization , Vol. 65, No. 2 (2011), pp. 243-73 (more psychological theory, here used to explain why conservatives and liberals in the U.S. had such different preferences regarding security commitments to Europe) Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, “Power, Globalization, and the End of the
Cold War: Reevaluating a Landmark Case for Ideas,” International Security , Vol. 25, No. 3 (2000/01), pp. 5-53 (and responses).
Holiday Break!!!!!
Lent Term
13. Europe after the Cold War – Mark Shirk - Michael Cox, “Beyond the West: Terrors in Transatlantia,” European Journal of International Relations , Vol. 11, No. 2 (June 2005), pp. 203-34 (Nobody could be worse for U.S.-European relations than George W. Bush, right? Wait a second…) - Frank Schimmelfennig, “NATO Enlargement: A Constructivist Explanation,” Security Studies , Vol. 8, Nos. 2-3, pp.198-234 (the alliance gets bigger, but not necessarily for reasons pertinent to defense) - Dan Reiter, “Why NATO Enlargement Does Not Spread Democracy,” International Security , Vol. 25, No. 4 (2001), pp. 41-67 (arguing NATO membership is at best incidental to democratization) - Rapp Hooper, Mira. Shields of the Republic: The Triumph and Peril of America’s Alliances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2020. Intro, Ch.6. [Rapp Hooper argues that the success of US alliances has been their downfall, a newly relevant argument given the strain between Europe and the US in the Trump Administration]
Recommended: Kay, Sean I. “Realist Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Security Institutions.” Security Studies 29, no. 3 (May 26, 2020): 493–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2020.1761442. (more on the expansion of NATO in the 1990s). Alan J. Kuperman, “The Moral Hazard of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from the Balkans,” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 52, No. 1 (2008), pp. 49-80 (did the U.S. and its allies accidentally encourage more bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s?) Vincent Pouliot, “The Alive and Well Transatlantic Security Community: A Theoretical Reply to Michael Cox,” European Journal of International Relations , Vol. 12, No. 1 (March 2006), pp. 119-27. Mats R. Berdal, “Fateful Encounter: The United States and UN Peacekeeping,” Survival , Vol. 36, No. 1 (1994), pp.30-50 (an expert on peacekeeping critiques the Clinton administration) Rosemary Foot, S. Neil MacFarlane, and Michael Mastanduno, eds., US Hegemony and International Organizations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), ch. 9 (good complement to Cox and Pouliot) [available as an electronic resource] Gries, Politics of American Foreign Policy , ch. 7 James M. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO (Washington, DC: Brookings, 1999), chs. 1, 3 (NATO expansion from inside the Clinton White House) Barry R. Posen, “European Union Security and Defense Policy: Response to Unipolarity?” Security Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2006), pp. 149-86 (has Europe been hedging against the risk of U.S. abandonment/belligerence/instability?) Frank Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO, and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pt. 1 (more developed version of Schimmelfennig’s article) [available as an electronic resource]
Johnson could have avoided war, but didn’t) Gareth Porter, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2004), chs. 1, 8 (argues that U.S. military strength relative to the USSR and China helped produce the Vietnam War) Er-Win Tan, The U.S. versus the North Korean Nuclear Threat: Mitigating the Nuclear Security Dilemma (London: Routledge, 2014), chs. 4, 7 (this issue isn’t going away)
15. The Middle East – Mark Shirk - Pressman, Warring Friends , chs. 1, 4 [available as an electronic resource] (how does the U.S. relationship with Israel constrain the latter?) - F. Gregory Gause III, “The Future of U.S.-Saudi Relations,” Foreign Affairs , Vol. 95, No. 4 (July/August 2016) (a leading scholar on Saudi Arabia and U.S. foreign policy weighs in) - Haas, The Clash of Ideologies , chs. 1-2 [available as an electronic resource] (somewhat controversial take on the way ideological conflict shapes Middle Eastern countries' relations with the United States) - Russell A. Burgos, “Origins of Regime Change: ‘Ideapolitik’ on the Long Road to Baghdad, 1993- 2000,” Security Studies , Vol 17, No. 2 (2008): 221-56 (the war before the war)
Recommended:
David W. Lesch and Mark L. Haas, eds., The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies , fifth edition (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2012), chs. 14-15, 17-18, 28 (excellent text) Rachel Bronson, Thicker Than Oil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). [On Saudi Arabia-US relations] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (New York: Penguin Books, 2004), chs. 5- (did the U.S. “make” the Taliban and al Qaeda? It’s not that simple). Lloyd C. Gardner, The Road to Tahrir Square: Egypt and the United States from the Rise of Nasser to the Fall of Mubarak (New York: New Press, 2011) [a look at U.S. influence—or lack of influence—on Egyptian politics) Fawaz Gerges, America and Political Islam: Clash of Cultures or Clash of Interests? o (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), chs. 2-3 (contrast with Haas) Gries, Politics of American Foreign Policy , ch. 8 Alex Roberto Hybel and Justin Matthew Kaufman, The Bush Administrations and Saddam Hussein: Deciding on Conflict (Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006), chs. 2, 4, 6 (psychological analysis of decision-making by father and son) Rashid Khalidi, Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East (Boston: Beacon Press, 2009), chs. 1, 4-5 (legacies of the Cold War for the Middle East) Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, 2008), chs. 1, 8-10 (U.S.-UK collaboration to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh and install the Shah in power in the 1950s) Marc Lynch, “Anti-Americanisms in the Arab World,” in Anti-Americanisms in World Politics , edited by Peter J. Katzenstein and Robert O. Keohane (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007), 196-224 (again, it’s complicated) Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror (New York: Three Leaves Press, 2004), chs. 1, 3 (it’s not Islam, it’s American
interventionism) Aaron David Miller , The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab- Israeli Peace (New York: Bantam Books, 2008) [account of unrealistic expectations in the peace process by someone who has participated in it] Donnette Murray, U.S. Foreign Policy and Iran: American-Iranian Relations since the Islamic Revolution (London: Routledge, 2010), intro, ch. 1 (helpful overview) Thomas Ricks, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (New York: Penguin Press, 2006), part II (see especially chapters 8 & 9 on ‘How to Create an Insurgency’) Barbara Slavin, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007) [US-Iran relations] William Quandt , Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 1967 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001) [a good complement to Miller’s book by another person experienced in the peace process] Robert Vitalis, America’s Kingdom: Mythmaking on the Saudi Oil Frontier (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006), chs. 1, 8 (oil, race, and U.S.-Saudi relations
Supervision questions for Part III:
- Was U.S. involvement crucial for maintaining the peace in Europe after World War II?
- Were defense-related concerns or something else the major factors driving NATO enlargement?
- What has been the US approach to Asia, why does it differ from Europe?
- Which is more unshakeable: U.S. ties to Israel or Saudi Arabia?
- How has U.S. foreign policy towards Africa changed since the 1990s?
- Is discourse on human rights just window-dressing for hemispheric dominance as far as U.S. relations with Latin America are concerned?
Part IV: Specific Contemporary Issues
16. Great Power Rivalry: China and Russia – Mark Shirk - Yuen Foong Khong, “Primacy or World Order? The United States and China’s Rise,” International Security , Vol. 38, No. 3 (2014): 153-75 (great review essay on the present and future of U.S.-China relations) - Thomas Christensen, “Fostering Stability or Creating a Monster? The Rise of China and U.S. Policy toward East Asia,” International Security Vol. 31, No. 1 (2006), pp. 81– (good complement to Khong) - Cooley, Alexander, and Daniel Nexon. Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of American Global Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. Ch. 4
Recommended
David C. Kang, China Rising: Peace, Power, and Order in East Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), chs. 8-9 (what would Asia look like with China replacing the U.S. as the leading regional power?) Charap, Samuel and Timothy J. Colton, Everyone Loses: The Ukraine Crisis and the Ruinous for Post-Soviet Eurasia. London: Routledge, 2018 Menon, Rajan and Eugene B. Rumer, Conflict in Ukraine: The Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015. Krickovic, Andrej and Yuval Weber, “Commitment Issues: The Syrian and Ukraine Crises as Bargaining Failures of the Post-Cold War International Order”, Problems of Post-
