Crista Lewis

1-24-02

 

Article:  Stephen E. Ambrose, "The Presidency and Foreign Policy," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 5, Winter 1991-92, pp. 120-137.

 

Main Point:

In this article, Stephen Ambrose provides a brief survey of American foreign policy between 1941-1991.  Not only does he recount the Presidency’s successes and blunders during the half-century, but he also provides a commentary concerning the potential reasons that the United States has not fully realized the objectives set forth by Roosevelt and Truman and the founders of the United Nations to end the arms race or establish a semblance of collective security.  Through this concise analysis of Presidential foreign policy, many lessons are revealed:

 (1)  Realism is always more effective than idealism concerning the achievement of foreign policy goals.

 (2)  In order to implement an activist foreign policy, a strong military presence is necessary.

 (3)  There is a fundamental dichotomy inherent in the Constitution between the executive and legislative branches for control of international relations.

 (4)  During times of crisis, Congress has conceded activist foreign policy roles to the President.

 (5)  Consistency has been difficult to achieve in the realm of foreign policy, but it is powerful when it occurs. 

 (6)  Open, meaningful debate and consensus among the President, Congress, and the American public is essential to achieve policy success.  Failures typically arise in those areas in which there is inconsistency and confusion in policy. 

 

Summary:

Below is a brief synopsis of the happenings in foreign affairs and the successes and failures in international relations during each President’s administration.

Roosevelt/Truman:

Both Roosevelt and Truman have been triumphant at extending the reach of American foreign policy and articulating policy goals that have served as guides for future presidents to follow and implement. Although their commitments abroad have built the foundation of foreign policy for years to come, they have additionally been able to convince the American public that the maintenance of democracy overseas is a vital national interest.  Roosevelt’s successes include the defeat of fascism and communism in Europe and militarism in Japan.  Subsequently, Truman organized NATO and crafted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe after WWII.  Also, his Truman Doctrine committed the U.S. to contain communism worldwide.  His chief mistake was drawing the U.S. into the Korean War without consulting Congress.  Later he lost support in Congress and among his constituency by vacillating in the way he conducted armed forces during the war.

Eisenhower:

Through a joint congressional resolution, Eisenhower was given the ability to use armed forces, specifically in the Middle East, to assist any nation in the struggle against assault from communist countries.  Like Roosevelt, he played a dominant role in foreign policy.  During his administration, he agreed to a ceasefire in Korea, decided not to become involved in Vietnam, supported coups in Iran and Guatemala, forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula, and held down the defense spending.

Kennedy:

Kennedy desired to defend freedom worldwide and was ready to “pay any price, bear any burden” to do so.  However, his actions abroad failed to meet his initial objectives.  He supported an invasion of Cuba and retreated at a critical moment.  After the Cuban missile crisis, he entered into an agreement never to invade Cuba.  In Vietnam, he supported the South Vietnamese and escalated the conflict, but allowed the CIA to participate in a coup to overthrow their President.  In his management of foreign policy, he never sought the advice of Congress, but the legislature was willing to extend support because of the tensions from the Cold War.

Johnson:

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution expanded the power of the presidency in Southeast Asia.  At the outset, Johnson was opposed to involvement in Vietnam, but eventually sent 550,000 soldiers and expanded the war.  Claiming never to never play politics with peace, he called a bombing halt one week before his 1968 election.  The political waffling and mishandling of the Vietnam conflict caused Congress to assert a more prevailing foreign policy role after his stretch in office.  The War Powers Act was subsequently passed; this limited the President’s discretion to send troops abroad without Congressional approval. 

Nixon/Ford:

Nixon’s policy addressed Southeast Asia and declared that communist aggression should be handled by the Asian nations themselves.  During his stint, he removed the United States from Vietnam, opened the door to China, promoted detente with the Soviet Union, and negotiated the first Cold War arms control agreement (SALT). The above actions represented a reversal of the policies he advocated for twenty years.  Further, no constituency ever emerged behind his policies regarding the organization of diplomatic and trade relations with China or easing of tensions with the Soviets, for he often negotiated in secret.

Carter:

Support for human rights initiatives had been good politics for Carter during his campaign, but the issue made for awful policy, as it was directed against America's allies, who were vulnerable to Carter's demands, rather than America’s adversaries.  His idealism caused resentment in the Soviet Union and contributed to Carter's failure to reach arms control agreements. Once the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, his initial policy goals were reversed.  He reacted by placing an embargo on grain and high technology exports to the Soviets. He withdrew SALT II, an arms control agreement drawn up by Nixon and endorsed by Ford, from the Senate ratification process and increased defense spending.  When Carter left office, relations with the Soviet Union were more strained with each side having more weaponry and less commerce than before Carter assumed office.  Nonetheless, Carter was instrumental in negotiating the Camp David accords in 1979, the first peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. His second main triumph was the Panama Canal treaty in 1978, restoring full sovereignty over the canal to Panama. He also established full diplomatic relations with China. Still, he failed entirely to achieve his stated goals of “ending the Cold War, improving human rights, stopping the arms race, and eliminating nuclear weapons.”
Reagan:

Reagan’s administration was also replete with inconsistency.  He signed the first arms reduction agreement of the Cold War, but entered office aiming for first strike capability.  Yet, even as he sought arms reduction along with the Soviets, Reagan refused to accept Gorbachev's demand that the United States stop its most expensive weapons development program in history, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).  Promising never to pay ransom for hostages, he sold weapons covertly to the Iranian government for their release.  Reagan’s doctrine was never formally stated, but his policies consisted of clandestine military and economic support for anticommunist forces in Nicaragua and Afghanistan.  However, Reagan made some remarkable strides. By building up U.S. defenses, Reagan was held to be responsible for the retreat of communism from central and eastern Europe. This approach (“maintaining U.S. defenses and waiting for communism to self-destruct”) was an integral part of the Truman Doctrine.

Bush:

Like Reagan, Bush never articulated his own doctrine.  The legacy he left behind was his opposition to unprovoked “aggression by one Arab nation to another.”  He also encouraged Congress to vote for the equivalent of a declaration of war in the Persian Gulf.

 

Analysis and Ongoing Trends:

The perpetual inconsistencies and swings in foreign policy during this time period can be attributable to the erratic shifts in Presidential power.  Only two of the ten Presidents served more than two terms, and all were significantly different from one another in terms of agendas, prior experience, and political affiliations.  Further, in the Constitution, the executive and legislative branches are given different, and often conflicting, powers, which has manifested in a constant struggle over control of foreign policy.  The President’s “ability to act…and answer questions later” has given him tremendous clout, especially during the Cold War, in the execution of foreign policy.  Yet, Congress has the ability to investigate after the fact, as in the U.S. involvement in Vietnam or Iran-Contra.  Shifts in America’s position in the world economy have also created relative disappointments in foreign policy.  Formerly, the U.S. was able to leverage its creditor status and favorable trade balance to impose economic sanctions in order to achieve international compliance with its foreign policy objectives. Finally, the military balance was altered during 1941-1991.  After WWII, the American armed forces were immeasurably superior compared to the years ahead of the war as well as the rest of the world.  Also, the U.S. had a virtual monopoly of the world’s nuclear weapons.  Despite Kennedy’s attempts to amass enough weapons to permit the U.S. to win the arms race, Russia was able to catch up.  Meanwhile, the U.S. cut back its number of conventional forces and armaments, and with the advent of the all-volunteer force during Nixon’s administration, the number of members in the armed forces decreased markedly.  Regardless of its nuclear capabilities, the U.S. was consequently mired in its ability to exert world leadership because of its lack of military personnel.  Historically, the U.S. was only able to exert influence where it has maintained armed forces on a permanent basis.  Despite the above weaknesses and shifts in America’s foreign policy efforts, it is irrefutable that the power of the Oval Office in the conduct of such policy abroad has strengthened as a result of Roosevelt’s defeat of Nazism and the collective efforts of the Presidents thereafter.