American Foreign Policy - Essay Example

American Foreign Policy During War of Independence, America opened its foreign policy account with an astonishingly beneficial relationship with France. France, who never had a proper relationship with Britain, in those days of British supremacy could hit it off very well with the new nation, mainly due to contributions made by prominent figures like Lafayette. When country won independence, a carefully crafted Constitution was adapted with great attention and detail towards foreign policy. Due to the high significance attached to foreign policy, the creators of Constitution were apprehensive about the future handling of important decisions. In this apprehension, the country’s founding fathers seem to have given overlapping powers to Legislature and Executive, and this led Edwin Corwin to say that both branches are expected “to struggle for the privilege of directing American Foreign Policy.” “The making of sound U.S. foreign policy depends on a vigorous, deliberative, and often combative process that involves both the executive and the legislative branches” This has naturally resulted in Executive and Legislature sharing the foreign policy decisions. It has also resulted in a kind of competition and jealous guarding of their spaces, which has led to unpleasant bickering many times. Constitution has laid down these principles as effective check against each other’s power, and the hope of a highly gratifying foreign policy that would be helpful not only to America, but also to the rest of the world, as America is a huge and powerful nation. They had not foreseen that America would become the only super power, but they had definitely foreseen that it would be an influential power in the world, that would have a definite say in world matters. These thinkers want that clout to be a very positive one. To a very large extent, they have attained their wish, though it leads to one-upmanship very often, especially when the incumbent in White House is not a visionary. America had gained her independence much before any other colonies and her only rival in those years was Britain in world affairs. Slowly when British power diminished after two world wars, America more or less conducted her foreign affairs on her own terms and this made the American President an invincible and all-powerful personality on the world stage. But at home, there had always been a slight, sometimes more pronounced tug of war between the Executive and Legislature, which worked as an effective check during times of stress, and an irritant, sometimes even a definite threat during other. Treaties in US are entirely executive agreements. American presidents have made many international agreements through Congressional-Executive Agreements and only the President has the power to do so. These have to be ratified by only majority in both the Houses. Some constitutional scholars have said that these CEAs are unconstitutional, but Supreme Court has upheld their validity. Once these agreements are reached they are binding while these procedural acceptances go on. Foreign policy is the politics of shared power between executive and legislature and these two have to maintain the balance. The extent to which the executive power touches the foreign policy had always been a matter of controversy. Today there are many pragmatic and constitutional arguments trying to fix the boundaries of executive power on war, national security and treaty interpretation. “Finally, the President has broad residual power over foreign affairs, but that power does not extend to matters not part of the traditional executive power. Accordingly, the President cannot claim lawmaking or appropriations power in foreign affairs” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=285988 American foreign policy still runs with an institutional approach where the powerful executive sometimes takes the centre stage, or a less powerful one allows the Legislature to take an upper hand. This usually results in two types of Presidents, one type, more visible, like Roosevelts and Kennedy (They said President Kennedy brought Presidential powers with him to White House) , another type, less visible, and most of the Presidents were so. Like any other country’s foreign policy, American foreign policy had been mainly safeguarding national interests and self-gratification. Domestic politics has always affected her foreign affairs and diplomacy. Change of guard, charisma, ambition and capabilities of the leader, ongoing national problems have dominated the foreign policy and to some extent, have affected the world affairs again and again. We come across even the phobia of Cold War affecting the entire world, because it dominated the American imagination. American foreign policy has remained a dominant presidential foreign policy throughout. It has been so pro-executive at times, that internationally its allegiance to human rights and compassion had been questioned often. Accountability and transparency had not always been the strong points even against hue and cry from the public opinion. Defining words like effective and successful against American foreign policy is not very easy, because foreign policy decisions have always evoked mixed feelings. In the international sphere, most of the countries have disliked the American foreign policy, whereas some of them liked it. The countries which liked them had always been the propped up regimes that were working as henchmen to American interests. This means, from outside point of view, American foreign policy had not been very successful. Definitely it had been very effective. Because of the American economic clout and aid potential, most of the countries have accepted its foreign policy as there were very few alternatives. Domestically speaking, American foreign policy had been accepted usually. American public always were more aware of their national influence abroad and their power over world affairs. Foreign policy decisions have always ensured that these were intact and the general public seems to have been happy with the direction of the foreign policy. It had been effective enough to win elections and choose leaders. Whenever it was unpopular, it had changed the governments. America is perhaps the most influential country in the world affairs, barring the time when it was going through self-imposed seclusion and isolation. Mostly her foreign affairs decisions were effective and successful both. But definitely they had been quite unpopular at times. Unpopularity abroad did not affect the American public and governments did not perish because of it. It is also noticed that foreign policy worried American public only when it hit the economic interests of the Americans. Mostly the effectiveness and success of the foreign policy in America had been measured by the domestic trend of thinking. In general, it had been very successful during the two world wars, and had never been as unsuccessful as today. There is no doubt that in spite of being unsuccessful at present, it has managed to remain effective. American executive, after making major foreign policy decisions, always seemed to be what is popularly known as ‘manufacturing support’. This means, he is cajoling, bullying, almost threatening the legislature to toe his line of thinking and decision making. If the legislature is dominated by the opposition, this would be a very uncomfortable task and perhaps this is what the founding fathers wanted it to be, so that the powerful executive could be accountable to the legislature and elected representatives. This has created the impression that American foreign policy is so conflict prone and foreign policy decisions are highly political, inefficient and not visionary. Foreign policy decisions are divided between the White House and Congress, and there is a perpetual conflict of opinions, power and interest behind these decisions. Presidents are held responsible for the general effect of foreign policy decisions, mainly because they make these decisions without much prompting from the Congress. “In short the Constitution invites conflict by dividing the authority to make foreign policy between the branches of government and by giving self-interested politicians who occupy different positions in the national government reason to compete for control over foreign policy,” Trubowitz (1998, p.3). There is no doubt, that in the initial days of American freedom, country’s politics and foreign policy were dominated by exalted figures like Washington and Jefferson and it never occurred to Congress or general public to question any of their decisions. So these leaders did not do much of self-explaining, because they held such sway over public that it was unthinkable to question any of their actions. In addition, there were not many such decisions, as America was just gingerly stepping into the international arena. And the French connection endured beyond expectations. America was slowly ‘nibbling and piddling’ in Europe and the country’s foreign policy was going through a period of jealousy toward British power and shift from being neutral to blatant belligerency. During this transformation, there were zealous frictions between the executive and legislature at home. All powers being new, both combatants were at their combative best to safeguard their own power region. Even though Netherlands hesitated to recognize the American independence, it did not stop John Adams from securing a series of Dutch loans in and after 1782, a measure that did not gain wholehearted support from Congress. American efforts to join Armed Neutrality proved to be waste of lengthy diplomacy and legislature was careful. “Because the Armed Neutrality’s principles so closely resembled the Model Treaty, Congress immediately adopted its rules by resolution and commissioned a plenipotentiary to St. Petersburg to gain formal adherence to the league by the treaty. It was an impossible mission,” (Paterson et al, 1988, p.17). This was followed by many more diplomatic frustrations that stemmed American exuberant and expansive mood. Domestic troubles and uncertainties did not allow America to venture far. British refusal to evacuate the northwest forts and British assumption that America would break up soon, created further deterioration in relationship with Britain. This impasse was broken during Napoleonic war, which again created friction between the two branches of government, mainly because supporting Britain against the French, who were helpful during America’s hour of need, looked churlish to many. But things improved later between the Mother country and its erratic offspring, when Adams and Jackson declared ‘defensive war’ against Indians and Spanish and Britain did not protest even the massacre. Then the Munroe doctrine of 1823 showed the new way by smoothening down ruffled feathers of both. This was followed by another landmark, the War with Mexico and the American-made peace of 1847 and this caused misunderstandings and impediments. Expansions during this period taught many lessons to Americans, which were not always pleasant. Worst was yet to follow. Unfortunately, it happened during the regime of one of the greatest figures in human history, Abraham Lincoln and the internal civil war kept America busy enough from getting involved in too many adventures abroad and this was a period of lull, concentrating only on preserving national integration and human life as both warring parties were Americans. This was a short-lived period and once Civil War was out of the way, America was ready for further adventures abroad and that included eyeing of Japan and Asian possibilities. There had been many setbacks too. “America’s relative inattention to Asian affairs reflected the general waning of American expansionism and Manifest Destiny after the Mexican War. Talk of annexing Canada subsided. ..attempts to grab Cuba collapsed and cries for acquiring more territory from Mexico were muffled,” (Patterson et al, p.138). Slavery gave a ruffian like image to America. World could not understand how the young nation, after vehemently fighting for its own liberty could stoop so low to kidnap, capture, kill, maim, sell and control human beings from another continent and the ugly image of America started spreading from that point. Colonies which were fighting for their own freedom that imperialism was better than slavery. But the Civil War repaired this image to a very large extent and America was once again welcomed into international space. Now most of her diplomacy and foreign relations were concentrating on trade and economy. When Lincoln was alive, he vigorously maintained American neutrality. It is only after his sad demise that expansionism, imperialism and international rivalry cropped up as intentions of foreign policy with economic expansion as the main agenda. It had not been very easy for all the Presidents. Sometimes, legislature impedes the President to such an extent, that the President loses all functional alternatives and thus it loses the very purpose. The Taylor administration found it extremely difficult to pursue any coherent foreign policy with a Democratic majority in the Senate, as all Treaties with foreign countries had to please the opposition. “If the administration backed down too far from the advanced ground taken by Hise, whom it had repudiated, and by Squier, whom it had commissioned in his place, it would incur the reproach of cowardice in the face of British bullying. On the other hand, if it stood its ground too resolutely, it might incur was with Great Britain, which it certainly did not want to do,” (Johnson, 1916, pp. 427-428), and his administration tried so hard to strike a balance to be effective. The new navy was commanding the seas, even though America was not a great naval power earlier. During 1894 and 1895 American relations with China was dealt a moral blow by the Sino-Japanese war. America was romancing with Japan in a new found bonhomie and seemed to secretly, sometimes, not so secretly, favoring the Japanese victory, even her occupying Korea, the ‘hermit nation’ which depended foolishly on China. At home, executive and legislature seemed in tacit agreement of the policy. In 1891, while President Harrison was teaching Chile manners, after an unapologetic insult from Chile, again executive and legislature were in loggerheads. While one party felt justified that Chile needed a lesson, another thought it was unnecessary hatred creation for America. The depression of 1890 saw an unprecedented harmony between the two realizing that it was a fight for survival. And Cleveland, a just and conscientious person, did not force them to make choices. Cleveland handled the Congress and foreign policy adeptly. “He never let Congress or influential public opinion set the terms of his policy towards the Venezuelian crisis…..Pressures from jingoes in Congress and sensationalist press expanded, but the initiative in foreign affairs, unlike the 1860s and 1870s remained largely in the hands of the executive branch,” (Patterson et al, p.216). There were many imperial collisions in Asia during this time. America seemed to be well on the way to become an imperialistic power. The Philippine insurrection, as a result of getting embroiled into the major problem there after Aguinaldo emerged out of exile, became one of the ugliest wars in American history. It created a highly negative opinion in America and Congress could not be swayed easily. With all its highly visible condemnation of imperialism and colonialism, America had a colonial period of its own starting in 1898 spreading up to almost 1913, when it waged war on Philippines. McKinleyPhilippinesCartoon.jpg‎ (157KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) 1898 US Political Cartoon. US President William McKinley is shown holding the Philippines, depicted as a savage child, as the world looks on. The implied options for McKinley are to keep the Philippines, or give it back to Spain, which the cartoon compares to throwing a child off a cliff. The option of granting independence seems not to be on the cartoonist's mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:McKinleyPhilippinesCartoon.jpg At the same time, American economic and religions interests in China were threatened. Foreign policy went through a very negative phase with passionate outcries in international scene and unhelpful legislature and public opinion at home. During 1900 and 1914, when America went around managing, policing and extending her empires abroad, legislature and executive fought perennially for supremacy at home. The powerful personality of Theodore Roosevelt did not make matters easier either. This conflict goes on even today, and according to many historians, it is not a negative one, but a healthy conflict that should exist in a democracy. As America is left as the only superpower today, undoubtedly, American President has to be a world leader without many impediments to hold him back. “…leadership will be necessary at the situational level. Here, the challenge will be to find creative solutions to problems, to find “good people” with insight into human nature and the dynamics of world politics so that opportunities for action are not lost.” (Hastedt, 2003, p.422). BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Hastedt, Glenn P (2003), American Foreign Policy, Past, Present, Future, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 2. Johnson, Willis Fletcher (1916), America’s Foreign Relations, vol.1, Eveleigh Nash Company Limited, London. 3. Paterson, Thomas, Garry Clifford and Kenneth J. Hagan (1988), American Foreign Relations, A History to 1920, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington. 4. Trubowitz, Peter (1998), Defining the National Interest: Conflict and Change in American Foreign Policy, University of Chicago. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:McKinleyPhilippinesCartoon.jpg accessed on 15.11/2006. 2. Ramsay and Prakash, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, The Yale Law Journal. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=285988 Read More