Foreign policy and national security policy
Sarkesian highlights the similarities and differences between foreign policy and national security policy. Whenever there is a crisis, the distance between national security policy and foreign policy is small. National security differs from foreign policy since the objectives of the national security policy were narrower and concentrated on safety and security. Besides, national security was mainly focused on actual and probable adversaries and utilization of threat or force to do so. Currently, the utilization of force is linked to numerous missions beyond war, with many operations requiring a mix of both national security and foreign policy. Foreign policy concentrates on negotiations and compromises, whereas national security concentrates on military importance.
After the First World War, the US was still recognized under the European order. Even though the US participation in the war was vital, it was still satisfied with the European order as it did not violate their values. Britain and France were in the frontline to preserve democratic peace; therefore, the US had little concerns besides maintaining their values for international economics. At the start of the Second World War, the US did not want to be involved. However, the bombing of Pearl Harbor resulted in the US joining the war. The viewpoint of foreign policy changed after the Second World War since the US began as an isolationist nation. This meant that the US previously did not engage itself in the affairs affecting other nations. However, after the war, the US was regarded as a world power. According to Sarkesian, this was the beginning of the American Century. The US thrived under their established power and discovered that their roles as a world power went beyond their boundaries. The attained power made the US increase its contribution to external issues, which includes its attempt to promote democracy. As a result, the US started increasing its presence across the world to promote democracy.
After the Second World War, the national security policy has been focusing on those parties who utilize terrorist acts against the US and its associates. At the start of the Cold War, the efforts of the national security concentrate on nations under the communist authority. However, the viewpoint of national security has been complicated after the events of September 11, 2001. The US went into war against Afghanistan and Iraq during that period. Also, the US had to deal with China due to its increased influence and power. In addition, the US had to deal with North Korea, which had started inventing nuclear weapons. This shows that the threat to national security has increased and has become unpredictable, especially after the 9-11.
- How does Sarkesian define the concept of “national interests”? In your own words, list the three or four key US national interests. Explain why each is important. (Don’t confuse this question with No. 3. This question is not asking about Sarkesian’s categories of interests.)
Sarkesian based his definition of national interests on the perspective of the US. According to Sarkesian, national interests are demonstrations of the values of the US projected into international and domestic settings. The aim of interests entails the establishment and maintenance of an international environment that favors the peaceful maintenance of US values. However, there are other definitions of the national interests beyond the US perspective. This is because other countries also define their foreign policies with an aim to maintain national interest.
Worries from the domestic arena increased after September 11, 2001. The domestic arena became an essential place for the country to consider national interests since terror activities increased, access to information via technology, and other dangers also increased. The national interests of the US have three elements. First, the US national interests include the implementation of its values beyond the boundaries of the country. This includes the promotion of democracy. After the US became a superpower after the Second World War, it discovered that it could not promote democracy from within its boundaries. This contributed to the increased involvement of the US in the affairs of other countries across the world to spread democracy. The second national interest to the US is that its national security approach is not limited to its boundaries. Currently, the US faces more threats from outside. For instance, North Korea is still threatening the Western countries with nuclear weapons. Besides, China is increasing its strength and size in the international arena. Also, acts of terrorism have become frequent in Western Europe. After the US discovered that their national interests could only be attained through peaceful inclusion of other countries, the threats happening in other regions became a threat to America as well. Moreover, since the US has increased its influence across the world, its interests have also be shared globally. Thirdly, the main president points who defines the national interests of the country. This causes concerns, especially when the next presidents have different views about national interests. Currently, many are concerned that Donald Trump will persist in initiating and causing tensions between the US and other nations. For instance, Trump could damage the already weak relationship between the US and China.
- Describe Sarkesian’s categories for prioritizing US national interests. Identify which of Sarkesian’s categories each of the following issues and policies would fit: US drug interdiction policy in South America, Russia’s nuclear weapons, current operations against ISIS, US forces based in South Korea, global warming, and the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991.
The US national interests were categorized into three and determined in order of priority. Vital interests of the country categorized as the first order. Critical interests are categorized as second-order, whereas serious interests are categorized as third order. The first order deals with essential interests by focusing on protecting the homeland and regions that impact it. The country mobilizes its military and commits itself to resource utilization. The critical interests under the second-order do not directly influence the US survival or cause a risk to its existence but have the potential to develop into a first-order concern. The serious interests under the third order have no critical effect on the other two orders but have the potential to progress into a high-level order.
Global warming, current interventions against ISIS, and Russia’s nuclear weapons are examples that can be included in the first-order category. The nuclear weapons possessed by Russia create a serious threat to America. The connection between the US and Russia are tense at the present moment, and serious misunderstanding might cause another Cold War. Interventions against ISIS is also a threat to the US. Several terror attacks have been experienced in Western Europe, with some events spreading to the US. Failure of the US and other nations to respond to the ISIS would make it unstoppable. Global warming is a risk that is affecting the whole world. The US has enhanced interventions to address the problem of global warming since it emits a lot of greenhouse gases. The US needs to use more resources to address global warming.
Under the second-order category, concerns that do not directly influence the ability of the US to survive are included. However, these concerns have the potential to develop into a first-order priority. Under this category, a good example is the Persian Gulf War. When Iraq attacked Kuwait, the US was concerned that the invasion would proceed to Saudi Arabia from which the US imports the majority of its gasoline. Even though this war did not influence the US directly, the lack of gasoline would impact the lives of the citizens and cause a crisis like the one that occurred during the 1970s. If the US had not addressed the issue, the Persian Gulf War would have become a first-order concern. The US drug interdiction policy in South America is another example of a second-order national interest. If the US did nothing about the issue, the abuse of drugs would have become a significant problem.
The presence of US forces in South Korea is an example of a third-order interest. The forces have in South Korea from the time there was the Korean War. The US forces remain there to protect South Korea against North Korea. Immediately after the Korean War, the South Koreans needed protection because there was no peace agreement between South Korea and North. Currently, South Korea has developed and to be one of the largest economies in the world. The US forces will remain in South Korea even if South Korea continues to develop because third-order interests are also serious concerns.
- Summarize Sarkesian’s description of US values. What would you add or change? What is the connection between values and national interests?
The values of the US are found within the domestic arena and the political system. This value system enables us to interpret the cultures of other nations. Even though there is no national religion in the US, many values are derived from Christianity. The right to self-determination is one of the values in the US. This applies to the people and the country at large. Within the country, free elections enable the citizens to determine who their rulers are and have the power to replace them when they fail to represent the people. The second value in the US allows every individual to attain everything they wish to without being restricted by other people or the state. The third value states that leaders should use their power to serve the people since they owe it to them. This implies that government operations are based on an open system. The fourth value claims that changes and policies in the international setting should be founded on the first three values. This leads to peace maintenance, and war can only be used if the homeland is threatened. The fifth value entails the protection of all systems that believe in the US values. Countries that believe in values similar to the US will be safeguarded and nurtured by the US. The US value system is founded on the Judeo-Christian system that contributed to the establishment of the republic. The features of Judeo-Christianity are also preserved by other spiritual groups, including the Muslims.
I would adjust the last value where the country’s value system is founded on the Judeo-Christian system. I am aware that the founders of the US belonged to this religious group, but I think it has increased the division of the Democratic and Republican parties in the country. While the country has no national religious affiliation, several people perceive that the US is a Christian country. As a result, some Republicans believe that anything that is not Christian is wrong. In my viewpoint, this belief increases people’s intolerance towards others. I would also change the fifth value that claims the US will protect and nurture all nations demonstrating values similar to theirs. I agree that nurturing and protecting other nations that wish to become democratic is good, but this would create a situation where these countries become independent of the US to the extent that fends for themselves without assistance.
National interests and values are interconnected since they both influence how a nation acts and responds towards cases across the world. Values are focused on religious and cultural history and background, while national interests address wellbeing and security. A nation will respond to threats to security since it can impact the wellbeing of its people. The US reacts to every event that threatens its wellbeing. Like interests, values also vary from one nation to another because each has a different historical background.
- Describe Sarkesian’s three major approaches to the study of national security. Use a policy example to illustrate each. In your opinion, which approach may be the most effective for analyzing US national security policymaking?
The three main approaches include the systems analysis approach, the elite-versus-participatory approach, and the concentric-circle approach. The president is at the center of security in the case of the concentric-circle approach. The next ring after the president consists of the establishment of the national security and president’s staff. Effects from adversaries and allies can impact policies and behavior. In the concentric-circle parties that are far away from the central point, including the media, public, and congress, impact the president less directly.
The elite-versus-participatory policymaking approach is founded on the idea that democracy’s main challenge is that the protocol of implementing the policy is controlled by the elites. The elites are skillful and have resources to design a national security policy. However, the process can only be effective if the public is involved. If the elites only determined the country’s foreign interventions, much of the actions would be focused on self-interests and generation of money. The participatory framework concentrates on how the elites represent elected individuals, interest groups, and the public. This promotes success since all populations are allowed to participate.
The systems-analysis approach is founded on interconnections at all phases of the process of making decisions relating to security. This implies that there are several inputs from various social classes and levels. This would be the case if country-wide votes were used to influence aspects that affect the country. For instance, deciding whether or not the country should go to war. I think the most effective approach is the elite-versus participatory policymaking approach. This approach is appropriate for evaluating the national security policymaking because the people of US elected leaders to represent them and make decisions on their behalf. The elites vote on elements affecting the US on behalf of the public.
- After reading the course document “Policy Paper Guidelines,” what do you think will be the greatest challenge for you on this assignment?
After reading the guidelines, I believe the greatest challenge would be comparing the national security interests of the US and other countries. This because of the differences in history and populations in various countries influences their interests. Besides, the decision-making processes vary from one country to another. Therefore, analyzing these processes in comparison to the ones used in the US would need more time. Providing my opinion on areas of US values that need change is also a challenge since all the values are appropriate and need little or no change. Besides, my opinion on the values may not be corrected since they based on my personal views. In addition, the lack of enough information to address the fourth question would also be a challenge. Also, there is no sufficient information to address the question of how security regulations in the US have changed after the Second World War. This is because of the question of enough evidence to show the relationship between national interests and values. Besides, the use of matrices and graphs will be a challenge for this assignment. This is because of all the questions Sarkesian viewpoints and my personal opinions. However, formatting the assignment will not be a challenge since there are directions on how the paper can be made single-spaced.