foreign policy

This survey course in U.S. foreign policy-making has four basic objectives. The first goal is to provide a solid introduction to the actors, interests, and politics that shape the formulation, implementation, and oversight of American foreign policy. After an overview of the domestic and global contexts of foreign policy-making, including the impact of September 11, 2001, several class meetings will focus on specific players within the U.S. foreign policy process: the president, National Security Council, State Department, Defense Department, foreign economic bureaucracy, intelligence community, Congress, interest groups, news media, and the public. In each instance, we will explore the actor’s role, interests, and capacity to influence the direction of contemporary foreign policy.

The second objective of the course is to understand how these actors interact to make U.S. foreign policy across a range of issue areas. During one class period we will examine interagency processes. Several other sessions will be devoted to analyzing case studies of recent foreign policy decisions. These cases will illustrate the political and human dimensions of foreign policy decision-making and in doing so provide an opportunity to explore the real world of American foreign policy. Through these critical thinking exercises, we will also uncover the many different decision-making processes that produce foreign policy outcomes. The case studies will also advance the course’s third aim, which is to gain some appreciation of the substantive issues and challenges confronting present-day policy-makers. Some of the subjects to be discussed include terrorism, trade, nuclear proliferation, ethnic conflict, human rights, and weapons procurement.

Through lectures, discussions and case analyses, the fourth and final goal is to consider who truly makes American foreign policy. Scholars of U.S. foreign relations have long debated the relative influence of various governmental and nongovernmental actors. Some individuals contend the president primarily shapes foreign policy. Other observers argue the chief executive is just one of a number of important players. Which perspective is more accurate? Is there one correct explanation or does the answer change with particular issues or circumstances? We will consider these questions throughout the semester, giving particular attention to the "paradox of presidential power," and attempt to reach some conclusions during the final week.