US Foreign Policy - Case Study Example

Running Head: US Foreign Policy US Foreign Policy [Institute’s US Foreign Policy It is an observation that foreign policy of the United States plays a crucial role in functions and operations of different countries around the globe, and this has been the reason of significant importance of different aspects of US foreign policy in international media and research. This paper is a similar attempt to analyze one of the major stakeholders of US foreign policy: public. In particular, the paper includes discussion and analysis of the perspective as whether public opinion matters in the decision-making process of US foreign policy or not. The paper includes different studies and reports that will be very beneficial in comprehensive understanding and validation of the discussion. Introduction In a democratic nation’s foreign policy, decisions are likely to be taken by the citizens and in support of the citizens. Governments are answerable to the citizens and the public would not clash, in view of the fact that it is public who finally pay the price and suffer for the most part. Efforts of one government to control significant foreign policies of another by disturbing public opinion within that nation are not new to global relations. The British tried to influence United States view in support of joining both World Wars during the twentieth century. The issue of whether such efforts actually matter, however, stays open. United States public diplomacy throughout the post-9/11 phase certainly influenced by public opinion; however, the result is conditional on United States leaders’ trustworthiness in front of public (Hook, p. 67, 2010). In view of the fact that pragmatism highlights the continued existence, need, as well as authority is supreme and that the global system is an unsafe place described by doubt, it is argued that state behavior is observed from the viewpoint of that setting; external instead of internal forces to the state are considered to be the key determinants of foreign policy. As said by the former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, statespersons are confined by two sets of controls: first, diplomatic affairs, authority, and actions of other nations; and second, domestic restraints, ranging from public opinion to the approach of the government and bureaucracy. As a result, a foreign policy maker must be responsive to these restraints, master them, and rise above them, changing them to his or her determination (Hunt, p. 98, 2009). It is generally acknowledged by both researchers as well as the politicians that the balanced option is the leading approach to foreign policy making. This approach consists of identification and description of the problem; selection of objective; recognition of substitutes; and choice. Discussion In the foreign policy making procedure, the decision maker is not different to any normal human being who, after assessing the case, usually selects those measures, which almost certainly would attain the most excellent result. However, in the concept of rationalism, the rational is frequently puzzled with truth. If a foreign policy goes wrong, it is said that the decision makers worked unreasonably. However, whether correct or incorrect, if the decision was an act of study it can barely be unreasonable. Some that decision makers perform reasonably in conditions when they are stressed mainly in emergency, because in these circumstances, they have to be careful about their actions (Spanier & Hook, p. 395, 2009). The topic of public opinion along with its power in foreign policy has been an issue of argument both in and since the cold war between pragmatists and moderates. Arguments in favor of pragmatist view ‘can be found back in the eighteenth century’. “Edmund Burke a political philosopher contended that ‘A representative’s unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion” (Herring, p. 526. 2008). Slow public response to happenings in addition to the lack of knowledge causes the foreign policy decision maker to react too late. This is for the reason that the opinion sees to a state of affairs that no longer survives. The miserable fact is that the existing public opinion has been violently mistaken on the important moments. The citizens have compelled a sanction upon the results of knowledgeable as well as responsible representatives. They have bound the governments, which generally knew what would have been sensible, or was essential, or was more convenient, to be very late with too small, or too extensive with too much, too conscientious objector in serenity and too aggressive in conflict, too neutralist or comforting in conciliation or too unyielding. Mass opinion has attained rising control and has proven itself to be a risky matter of choices when the chances are life and death. The government is the head of public opinion, not its slave; the balanced conditions of excellent foreign policy cannot from the beginning count upon the ‘support of a public opinion’ whose inclinations are expressive instead of rational. This is mainly true of a foreign policy, which generally entails tradeoffs (Dobson & Marsh, p. 193, 2006). When it comes to public safety concerns public opinion is infamously inconsistent as well as quick to respond to influential exploitation and world happenings. In the United States especially, policymakers make use of moderate conversation, pragmatist philosophy. Public conversation on the topic of foreign policy in the United States is customarily embedded in the language of moderation, in spite of the reality that ‘behind closed doors’ the United States operates within the global system in accordance with the orders of pragmatist judgment. Fundamentally, an apparent gap divides public expression from the real behavior of American foreign policy (Pillar, p. 183, 2003) Even though public opinion rarely does control foreign policy and at times has caused troubles for the policy decision makers, pragmatists conclude that influential either lead the public to sustain their strategies or pay no heed to their inclinations in general. The pragmatist view that public opinion has small if any authority at all on global dealings was powerfully supported by “Cohen quoting one official in the State department as saying, To hell with public opinion. We should lead, and not follow” (Parmer & Cox, p. 212, 2010). Lastly, pragmatists reached an agreement with the conclusion that public opinion is unpredictable as well as expressive, lacking consistency as well as formation, and has slight if any control on foreign affairs. However, not everybody have the same opinions with the pragmatist attitude. The proof implies that public opinion has consistency, formation, and control on foreign policy making in a mutual association. In addition, the research done since the 1970s promotes the point that public opinion on foreign affairs is mostly steady, logically prepared, as well as balanced. Some argue that public opinion should control foreign policy as a result of democratic standards as well as the public’s sensible effect on perhaps exploratory and aggressive elites (Marrar, p. 184, 2008). Only popular opinion could provide a way to a sensible foreign policy in view of the fact that just a few people could embrace their purpose and their respect stable to a ‘common end’ and choose the benefit of humanity to ‘any narrow interest of their own’. According to moderates, public opinion has an effect on foreign policy by depressing the decision maker from taking uncertain measures from apprehension that the government might lose public support and hence influence them to choose strategies favored by the public. In addition, moderates note, public opinion has an effect on foreign policy when decisions develop bit by bit because in instances where decision requirement is quick, the government left with no time for replying to the public. Nonetheless, in those instances public opinion could restrain the decision maker above its range of action, and consequently selecting the foreign policies preferred by the public. “Public opinion sets broad limits of constraint, identifying a range of policies in which decision makers can choose, and in which they must choose if they are not to face rejection in the voting booths. Hence, public opinion more often than not acts as a rough first cut at policy options, since policymakers believe that a ‘successful policy needs to have public support or at least a lack of public disapproval” (Bennis & Chomsky, p. 138, 2001). The impact of public opinion on foreign policy is determined by the dealings between a decision maker’s ideas with reference to the appropriate function of public opinion in foreign policy formulation and the decision perspective within which a foreign policy selection must be taken (Lafeber, p. 380, 1994). However, political pragmatism is usually persuasive, as a theory, it is unable to distinguish the alterations around the globe by paying no attention to the dynamics of complete alteration, for instance, technical alteration in addition to the public opinion that stay within the characteristics of the actors and not the system. In a democratic system, leaders are answerable to the public’s determination, though ill informed and unpredictable it may appear to be. The American citizens are not unpredictable; they may be ill informed, however, they are still competent of having logical, steady ideas with reference to the position of the United States in world affairs (Baxter & Akbarzadeh, p. 146, 2008). Whatever the case may be, it is very obvious that public opinion matters to policy makers, particularly during the time of increasingly refined electronic media, that to disagree otherwise is impractical. Moderates have challenged the pragmatists’ idea that the majority is indifferent in and ill informed regarding foreign policy. The proof, on the other hand, implies that during 1979, 28 percent of the mature population within the United States knew the two nations caught up in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (commonly known as SALT) discussions (Mearssheime & Walt, p. 411, 2008); or that during the year1985, less than two thirds of the citizens knew that the United States supported South Vietnam during the Vietnam War, which cost more or less 60,000 Americans their lives (Mearssheime & Walt, p. 411, 2008). Moreover, facts imply that during the year 1970, just 9 percent of the American citizens supported the assault on Cambodia. On the other hand, it is apparent that in today’s world with highly developed information technology, the public is very well informed on concerns pertaining to both domestic as well as foreign affairs (Mearssheime & Walt, p. 411, 2008). As mentioned in the result of a poll carried out during mid 2007 (Cebeci, p. 328, 2011), “public opinion within Britain was extremely serious of their leader and the American President, George W. Bush, regarding their strategies about Iraq” (Cebeci, p. 328, 2011). Only 15 percent of respondents accepted the approach of Tony Blair while dealing with the state of affairs in Iraq, and merely 7 percent felt the same way regarding the American leader (Cebeci, p. 328, 2011). Lately, the decisions taken by George W. Bush, reveals that he does not take the polls - or the public opinion - into consideration while making decisions about foreign policy. An additional example where foreign policy decision makers disregarded public opinion is associated to the prospect of Turkey linking with the European Union. Even though the opinion polls showed that the huge majority of the European Union population was against Turkey’s accession into the European Union (Cebeci, p. 328, 2011), with opinion polls going as high as 79 percent, the European Union foreign policy makers signed the accession meeting (Cebeci, p. 328, 2011). Opinion polls within Austria reveal that over 86 percent of the contestants were not in favor of Turkish association and just 7 percent supported it. Another survey, about the same issue, revealed that the resistance within ‘Germany, France and Greece’ is more than 74 percent. However, within ‘Britain, Portugal, and Spain’ the resistance is below 48 percent, whereas in the new European Union counties, the support of Turkish association is more than 54 percent (Cox & Stokes, p. 245, 2008). Pragmatists ignore allegations that foreign policy is affected by public opinion, stating that leaders either disregard public opinion or lead the majority to support their situation. Data provided by studies indicates that the control of public opinion on foreign affairs differs from case to case (Ryan, p. 122, 2000). In conclusion, the paper discussed different studies in order to come to an understanding of the role of public opinion in the formation of US foreign policy. Personally, it is an understanding that public opinion does not matter to a huge extent in the US foreign policy, and additionally, public usually is not able to comprehend real meaning of an issue or a policy, and thus, everything happens for a hidden reason or purpose. References Baxter, Kylie and Akbarzadeh, Shahram. 2008. US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The Roots of Anti-Americanism. Routledge. Bennis, Phyllis and Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11th Crisis. Olive Branch Press. Cebeci, Munevver. 2011. Issues in EU and US Foreign Policy. Lexington Books. Cox, Michael and Stokes, Doug. 2008. U.S. Foreign Policy. OUP. Dobson, Alan P and Marsh, Steve. 2006. US Foreign Policy since 1945. Routledge. Herring, George C. 2008. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776. OUP. Hook, Steven W. 2010. U.S. Foreign Policy: The Paradox of World Power. CQ Press College. Hunt, Michael H. 2009. Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale University Press. Lafeber, Walter. 1994. The American Age: United States Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad 1750 to the Present. W. W. Norton & Company. Marrar, Khalil. 2008. The Arab Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Routledge. Mearssheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen M. 2008. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Parmer, Inderjeet and Cox, Michael. 2010. Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Routledge. Pillar, Paul R. 2003. Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy. Brookings Institution Press. Ryan, David. 2000. US Foreign Policy in World History. Routledge. Spanier, John and Hook, Steven H. 2009. American Foreign Policy since World War II. CQ Press. Read More