POLS 284: American Foreign Policy: Formulation and Execution	Professor Paul Conway
Class meets in FITZ 302	Office: Fitzelle 410;  Phone 3923; email to conwaypg
T, Th 2-3:15	Hours: T, Th 11:20-11:55 and 3:20-4:30; W 2-3

The standard of justice depends upon the equality of power to compel.
                                                                                        - Thucydides (ca. 410 BCE)
History without political science has no fruit;
                       Political science without history has no root.
                                                                                        - Sir John Robert Seeley (1896)
Catalog description: GenEd Attributes: LA, HO2, S    
POLS 284  The Formulation and Execution of U.S. Foreign Policy Examines contemporary issues and the process of foreign policy-making. Considers conflicts between bureaucracies, functions of the President, and Congressional interests in light of efforts to coordinate policies. Defines long-range foreign policy objectives considering the cultural characteristics and natural resource needs of the American political system. Prerequisite: SoS or 3 s.h. POLS.

(The Fall, 2007 class)

There are very few easy answers when it comes to America's foreign policies. As the richest country in the world with a military establishment that far surpasses the capabilities of all of our potential enemies combined, the US has the potential to do great harm as well as good. And despite all our wealth and power the mismanagement of our vast resources can drastically undermine the security that most Americans take for granted. 

The one thing we do know for sure is that the future will be filled with surprises. Reconsider the shocking and historically significant changes that have occurred during the previous decades: The Soviet Union disintegrated into many separate states; communism was discredited and rejected throughout most of the world; the "Cold War" between two superpowers ended abruptly.  Although the danger of nuclear warfare diminished, genocide, the most horrendous of human crimes occurred in Rwanda and what was Yugoslavia during the 1990’s. For Americans, the most astounding events in recent history were the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on 9/11/01. Since then US military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have drastically changed conditions in those countries with uncertain consequences internationally. And in recent years there were historic natural disasters in South Asia (tsunami), Pakistan, and India (earthquake) and the US Gulf Coast (hurricane Katrina). As this year begins, violent conflict in Iraq continues unabated, a kind of genocide seems to be occurring in Sudan, and several environmental issues threaten prospects for development and security in many places throughout the world. Rather than a predictable, peaceful, and hopeful world we face threats and difficulties that demand our attention and force policy makers to make decisions on a daily basis..

The option to ignore international politics and pursue an isolationist or unilateralist policy no longer exists. Most of the big problems are interrelated; none of them can be ignored. Altogether they suggest that human survival requires more long range planning, multilateral politics, international organization and cooperation than ever before. There are no easy political solutions.

Those of us who want to better understand this world and our own condition in it, must strive to develop an inquisitive, open-minded, and analytical approach to this subject. There is much that we can learn from history and scholarly research. But beware -- the discourse and discussions of public affairs has become increasingly polarized by ideologues and political partisans. None of us -- student or professor -- should pose as a know-it-all.

This instructor: I did most of my undergraduate work at Michigan State University and graduate studies at Montclair State in New Jersey and Purdue University in Indiana. Most of my research and teaching is in the subfield of international politics and U.S. foreign policy.

ATTENDANCE AND GRADING  Attendance is required.  It will usually be taken at the beginning of classes. Students with three or more absences may have their letter grades reduced at the end of the semester. Let me know (e-mail beforehand) if you have to miss class because of illness or emergencies.
Grades:  Grades will be based upon three tests, three written assignments, and three quizzes. Each of the tests will be worth 20% of the overall grade. The three assignments will be worth 40% of the overall grade. Participation (including attendance) can allow for a maximum of 10% increase or decrease of the grade.
(The quizzes will provide opportunities for additional points added to test grades.)
Plagiarism As stated in college publications, “Academic dishonesty is defined as any act by a student that misrepresents or attempts to misrepresent to an instructor or any College official, the proficiency or achievement of that student or any student in any academic exercise for the purpose of influencing a grade on a piece of assigned work, on an examination or quiz or in a course as a whole, or that is intended to alter any record of a student’s academic performance by unauthorized means . . . A student deemed guilty of an act of academic dishonesty may, depending on the nature of the offense, be subject to one or more of the following measures: failure of the assignment or examination, failure of the course, or dismissal from the College.  Furthermore, for a second offense, referral of the case to the Standing Disciplinary Board is mandatory. 

Required books:
Jerel A. Rosati, The Politics of American Foreign Policy (Fourth Edition, Belmont: Wadsworth, 2007).
Joyce P. Kaufman, A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy (Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006).

OUTLINE of topics and readings
Dates Topics and questions Readings assigned
August
30 Introduction to the course: Why is this topic important? Why is it important to
       understand the "process" as well as substance of policy? How will the course be
conducted? The concepts of power (coercion, deterrence, and persuasion) and the
ideal of rational decision making, "realism" as one perspective;
September
4 and 6 (A) Historical and global context of American foreign policy                           R/1-64; 377-85
             Distinguishing important realities and myths: Was the USA ever really isolationist?
             Can we define American political culture in a scientific or objective way? (probably not!)
             Online documents/transparency references to Winthrop/the Puritans, the Declaration of Independence
             Washington's speeches, Tocqueville, and (also examples of 'declaratory policies’) the Monroe
              Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine   The concepts of idealism and exceptionalism
The New American Century policy statement September 2000 as the neoconservative
vision for US policy http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.

“Neo-cons in retrospect: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612

11 Presidential power and leadership R/67-102

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president
or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable” -- Theodore Roosevelt

18 Bureaucracy and the NSC system R/103-139

20 State -- “Foggy Bottom” and the Foreign Service R/140-165

25 Diplomacy and contemporary issues: Ahmadinejad, Iran and the United Nations
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iran+president+&btnG=Google+Search
Myannmar (Burma) and the monks
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Myanmar+protest+demonstrations+monks&btnG=Search
“Genocide” and the US response to mass violence in Sudan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14620531

27 DoD – The Pentagon and civil-military relations R/166-201

October
2

4 TEST

9&11 Review of first test
The G word, symbolic politics? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15178877
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15178880
16 Intelligence bureaucracies – CIA, DIA, NRO, etc. –
Can the DCI coordinate them all? R/203-246
An insider's take on intelligence abuse:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5217645
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

The importance and inevitablity of leaks http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5204384

18 Foreign economic policies – trade, aid and environmental issues
R/247-275
20 Quiz-exercize
Sidebar: Iraqi’s who want out http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15391831

23 Commentary about U.S. policies in relation to Turkey, Iraq, and Pakistan
Al Qaeda in Pakistan? Al Qaeda in Iraq??? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15546020

25 & 30 Electoral politics (Q) R/412-433

The issue of torture as US policy – International and national definitions and redefinitions

Guantanamo abuses - radio essay http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=331
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15839964
The Abu Ghraib photos: cautionary warning - they are graphic: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/
The whistle blowers - what happens to them? Careers and prospects destabilized (Joe Darby, Gen Taguba, for example)
The documents:
- (Taguba Report) http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1870746
- Geneva Protocol on Treatment of POW’s, US Army Field Manual,
- International Ban on the Practice of Torture (Convention Against Torture CAT - 1984)
PART I Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3 General comment on its implementation

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

**********************************************************************************************************************

McCain Amendment to Appropriations Bill signed by President Bush with a “Presidential Signing Statement”

Amnesty International on US policies/McCain amendment and signing statement
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Amnesty_Magazine/Amnesty_Magazine/page.do?id=1105051&n1=2&n2=19

Blog essay on the McCain amendment and Presidential signing ‘trick’ http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=1544

The expansion of Presidential power

The concept of a “Unitary Executive” (source Wikopedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory Excerpt below:

The theory relies on the Vesting Clause of Article II which states "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Proponents of the unitary executive theory use this language along with the Take Care Clause ("The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...") to argue that the Constitution creates a "hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President."^[1]
The theory argues for strict limits to the power of Congress to divest the President of control of the executive branch

The Bush administration has interpreted the theory more expansively than previous administrations. As for what specific constitutional limitations on the judicial power President George W. Bush may have in mind, the argument used by the President and his supporters is widely regarded as consistent with legal positions promulgated by John Yoo, particularly as recorded in several of his legal memoranda while working at the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel under Bush. Yoo's positions include that the use of military force is, like presidential vetoes and pardons, an unreviewable matter. Yoo's opinions are widely seen by legal scholars as controversial and contrary to most scholars' understanding of the Constitution. Rejecting the applicability of the arguments previously stated in support of such views, many argue that these views seem to have little basis in either the text or the history of constitutional law and this is seen by many to lend further credence to the skepticism regarding the validity of the arguments.^{[citation needed]}
The Yoo position is supported by David Addington, counsel to the Vice President, who advocates a New Paradigm, involving extreme flexibility of Presidential power.^[1]
President Bush has applied the theory of the "unitary executive" in a wide range of substantive issues, often issuing signing statements detailing how the executive branch will construe legislation. President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone - more than the combined number issued by all previous US presidents. From President Monroe’s administration (1817-25) to the Carter administration (1977-81), the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives. From Reagan’s administration through Clinton’s, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322.^[14]

^{other sources include} http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/26/usdom14465.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html

. . .(a) joint hearing was held by the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees on the case of Canadian citizen Maher Arar, the software engineer who was famously detained at JFK Airport in 2002 and covertly flown to his native Syria, where, for ten months, he was physically and mentally tortured -- in a U.S. operation inside a nation the administration labels "terrorist." Eventually, Arar was sent home to an apology and compensation from the Canadian -- not U.S. -- government. Despite the fact that it was the United States that sent him to face such a nightmare, four years later the Bush administration has yet to apologize to Mr. Arar -- or even acknowledge his ordeal. In fact, despite an independent Canadian investigation that last fall cleared him of anything remotely resembling criminal activity (In 2004, the same year President Bush was named "Person of the Year" by Time magazine, Arar was named Time Canada's "newsmaker of the year"), Arar remains on the United States terrorist watch list and was thus unable to travel to Washington to testify at the hearing on his own case. Instead, he delivered his words in front of a camera from Ottawa, his testimony delivered to the Congress courtesy of satellite hookup.

It was not the first time the Congress has discussed extraordinary rendition -- or Arar's case, for that matter. The case achieved notoriety years ago, and YouTube contains multiple clips of a very angry Sen. Patrick Leahy laying into former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this past winter about the torture of Maher Arar.

"We knew damn well if he went to Canada he wouldn't be tortured," the Vermont senator boomed. "He'd be held and he'd be investigated. We also knew damn well if he went to Syria he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country ... to send somebody to another country to be tortured. You know and I know that this has happened a number of times the past five years by this country."

*********************************************************************************************************************

November
1 Congress and foreign policies R/306-348

Rosati’s case studies of McCarthy, Fulbright, the WPA, and Jesse Helms
Congressional powers of the purse, oversight, legislation
Presidential governing with 1/3 + one? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15579667

Public diplomacy/ Karen Hughes

Her appointment and then resignation http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4534916

Print http://www.slate.com/id/2177248/

Interview http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15876259

6 Political culture (again) -- Public Opinion, ideology and partisanship
R/349-388

8 Decision making theory and Washington politics (bring text to class) R/276-304

13 TEST

15 (A) Review of second test

*****

27 Interest group politics R/434-469
The Israel Lobby (Big deal or overrated?)
(Optional controversial reading) http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
(One response) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19judt.html
(response printout) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19judt.html?pagewanted=print
(and a radio summary of the controversy) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5353855

29 Civil liberties and national security R/389-411

December
4 Mass media and communications in the age of spin R/470-512
http://survey.prwatch.org/public/survey.php?name=falsies2007

A look at the burner: front and back Iran to Darfur and trafficking
energy issues, beginning with oil: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16108561
6 (A) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17158518

11&13 Conclusions: Interdependence and Interrelatedness
“Where Boys Grow up to be Jihadis” (A case study)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25tetouan-t.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

The war on terror (“Terrorism” in general? All terrorist groups?) http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm

20 Last exam is scheduled for Thursday, 12/20 at 11am

NOTE:
If any changes to this outline are made for instructional purposes
they will be posted online and announced in class.
http://employees.oneonta.edu/conwaypg/pols284fall03.htm

The objectives of this course begin with several assumptions: We are all part of a world of interdependent states. The most important problems and conflicts in this world tend to be interrelated. This course will attempt to encourage critical thinking about foreign policies. It will introduce some of the major concepts, analytical frameworks and sources of information in political science. The political concepts include realism, deterrence, balance of power politics, bureaucracy and bureaucratic politics, diplomacy, international organization and law, and human rights.

ASSIGNMENTS **********************************************************************

Formulation and Execution of Fall, 2007

U. S. Foreign Policy Third Assignment POLS 284

Gathering Data and Analyzing a Potential or Real "Triangular Relationship"

Former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (now associated with the CSIS think tank) popularized the notions of “triangular relationships” and “linkage” in foreign policy circles. Your assignment is to identify two countries, gather data on their populations, commerce, human rights conditions and draw some inferences as to whether and how US relations with those countries might be "triangulated." Can the US use its influence or relationship with one of the countries to ‘leverage’ greater influence with the other country to promote security, human rights, diplomatic or economic cooperation, protect environmental resources, combat human trafficking, etc.

Select two (foreign) states in a region or in relation to an issue that is significant to the USA. The two states that you select should be somewhat interrelated or have a significant political, geographical, or economic relationship. Sign up for the two countries that interest you as soon as possible - I will bring a list to class and keep it on my office door. If you call or e-mail when I am in my office I can check the list and sign you up if those countries are not already claimed by someone else.

1. Using the internet sources and Europa Yearbook, compile some of the relevant data for the two states and profile/outline the following:

a. political and demographic data such as ethnic and religious minorities; the type of regime or political/governmental system; the size and capabilities of military forces; other related variables. (CIA Factbook is most useful for such data)

b. Geography and natural resources (economic assets; raw materials, commodities;

industrial products; other variables.)

c. Commercial relationships (Name the main trade partners and commercial patterns in terms of most important export/import arrangements. Do they trade with one another? Do either or both trade with the US? How much?) (Europa Yearbook is most useful for such data)

d. "Human rights" conditions of particular concern to the US? (you may use a source such as State Department Country Reports, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch reports. (Data on human rights conditions on the internet should be readily available)

e. Condense the above data on one or two pages.

2. Reflect upon and outline possible triangulation of US interests: Begin with the question of what the US goals may be in relation to the other country and what the other country may want from the US or the 3^rd country. (Use a search engine such as Google and news media sources to get that kind of information). Then question how (do) the two foreign countries relate to each other? In order to promote the US interest or objective in one of the countries can the US use its relationship with the other to generate incentives (carrots) or threats (sticks)? If one of the countries is more influential than the US is with the other can the US offer incentives to encourage cooperation to bring about change (in the third country)?

Discuss some US policies in relation to the two countries and whether there is any real or potential linkage of issues and policies in a triangular relationship. In your conclusions you may argue that the concept of triangulation is or is not relevant but you must support your conclusions with logic and data that seems most relevant

3. Write a think piece essay that does not exceed 3-4 pages in length. Be sure to edit your paper before submitting it. Also indicate all of your sources with standard bibliographic references including complete web addresses.

4. This assignment is due on Thursday, December 6.

***********************************************

Second assignment: A Critique of a two Political Science Journal Articles

 This assignment should be done on no more than 3 pages (double spaced) or less.

The articles should deal with one of the following topics:
US relations with China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Japan, North and South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Venezueula.
Global Warming, Human Trafficking, Genocide, Trade Policy, Weapons Proliferation

Instructions

A. Select an interesting and readable analytical article from any two of the following political science journals:

You must use this list of acceptable journals unless you check with me first:

Journal of Conflict Resolution

Journal of Politics

Foreign Affairs

Foreign Policy

International Security

International Organization

Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution (OJPCR)

World Politics

Write the full citation of the articles that you intend to critique on the list available in

class and in my office. Do not select any article that someone else has already claimed.

B. Before reading the articles, ask yourself what you know about the subject, why are you interested in it and what questions you have on the topic. Then read them. Give attention to the author's objectives, her basic assumptions and the way she defines key terms, and her analytic approach to the subject. You main concern is with the overall quality of the articles in terms of how they affect your own feelings and especially your thoughts and questions about the topic. You might relate to some of the political concepts considered in this course (e.g., coercion, carrots and sticks, bureaucracy, bureaucratic politics, deterrence, etc.) or significant questions that you have about the subject or politics in general. Reread the articles a second time if necessary.

C. Be sure to express your thinking about the main points in both articles. Explicitly relate to some relevant points in the text or your notes. Express (in your essay) some of the questions that are raised in your mind as a result of reading the articles. (Don't mention the writing style of the authors - if he or she was difficult to understand, remember you picked the articles and they were supposed to be readable in the first place.) Express yourself as clearly as possible. All of the wording in your essay should be your own, except for lines or phrases by the author that you clearly put in “quotes.” Condense your critique to three typewritten pages. Be sure to proofread and edit the essay before you turn it in.

D.. You must have the full citation of the articles on the assignment that you submit. *1. Each of the articles that you cite as the sources for your paper should include the standard form with name of the author, the title of the article (in quotes), the title of the publication (underlined or in bold print), the numbers of the volume and issue (with dates in parentheses), and, lastly, the page numbers.

**2. If you take the articles from the internet, you must also clearly cite the entire web address where the article can be found, the date on which you used it, and the original source of the publication.

************************************************************************************************************************

POLS 284                                                                                                Fall, 2007
Assignment                                                                        Professor Paul Conway

A. Comparison of print news media sources of news: Monitor the coverage of one of the sets of topics below for a period of at least three days and compare the coverage in the New York Times, the (Manchester) Guardian and one other newpaper source of your choice

Possible Topics –

A. The US military in Iraq and Afghanistan

B. US diplomacy and events in the Middle East (Israel-Palestinian) conflict

C. Globalization, poverty, international trade

D. Nuclear and WMD proliferation

E. Other topics?

The paper you submit must include the following:

1. Indicate 2-3 dates for a reasonable comparison of coverage of IR/foreign news sources.

2. List the titles and authors of the articles reported.

3. Summarize the essence of the comparable reports.

 4. Comment in two or more paragraphs on:

    (a.) The overall length quantity of the coverage in each of the sources

    (b.)  Your impressions of the quality  or value of the content of the news reported.

    (e.g. Were the reports clear, in depth, and interesting? Did you learn anything?
      Was one source significantly better than the others?)

 This assignment should be 3-4 pages maximum.

 A variety of sources and questions related to the course are below:

The New York Times, available free on campus, is recommended as a useful supplementary source and will be referred to in class. There will also be several reprints of essays from media sources and journals distributed in class. The readings and presentations will emphasize  American foreign policies in light of  America's social and political history, geography, and economics. 

Backgrounders:

Vice-President Cheney on why the US should invade Iraq in 2002
Vice-President Cheney on why the US should not invade Iraq in 1994
http://www.prwatch.org/node/6352

BIBLIOGRAPHY and recommended supplementary readings (on terrorism and US policies)

Faoud Ajami, What the Muslim World is Watching, New York Times Magazine, Nov 18, 2001; pp.48-68.
Peter L. Bergen, Holy War Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden, NY: Free Press 2001.
Caleb Carr, Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians: Why it has always failed and why it will fail again New York: Random House, 2002.
Christian Caryl, "Why They Do It" New York Review of Books Sept 22, 2005
Benjamin DeMott, Whitewash as Public Service: How the 9/11 Commission Defrauds the Nation Harper's October, 2004. p 35.
James Fallows, "Bush's Lost Year" The Atlantic Monthly October 2004 p.68.
F Gregory Gause, "How to Save Saudi Arabia" Foreign Policy Sept/Oct 2004 p.66
Larry Goodson. Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001.
James Hoge, Jr. and Gideon Rose, eds. How Did This Happen? New York: Public Affairs Reports, 2001.
Richard A. Posner, "The 9/11 Report: A Dissent," New York Times Book Review (August 29, 2004) p.1
Peter C. Sederberg, Terrorist Myths: Illusion, Rhetoric, and Reality NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Jonathan R. White, Terrorism: An Introduction (3rd edition), Stamford, CT: Wadsworth, 2002.
Fouad Ajami What the Muslim World is Watching (Al Jazeera) New York Times Magazine, November 18, 2001; p48.
Joseph Lelyveld, All Suicide Bombers Are Not Alike, New York Times Magazine, October 28, 2001; p.48
Bill Keller, The 40-Year (Cold) War, New York Times, (Op-Ed).
Salmon Rushdie, Yes, This Is About Islam, New York Times, November 2, 2001 (Op-Ed).
Michael Scott Doran, Somebody Else's Civil War, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 2002; p.22.
Michael Howard, Whats in a Name? How to Fight Terrorism, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 2002; p 8.
Seymour M. Hersh, Kings Ransom: How Vulnerable are the Saudi Royals? The New Yorker, Oct 22, 2001; p.35.
Tim Judah, The Center of the World, New York Review of Books, Jan 17, 2002; p.10.
Charles Glass, The Great Lie and Balfour, Weizmann and the Creation of Israel, London Review of Books, 7 June, 2001; p.7.
Joe Klein, Closework: Why we Couldn't See What was Right in Front of Us, The New Yorker, October 1, 2001. p.44.
For background on Israel and the Palestinians, see Charles Glass, "The Great Lie: Post-Modern Zionism,"
London Review of Books, 30 November, 2000 pp 8-10.
Seymour M. Hersh, "The Syrian Bet" in  The New Yorker,  July 28, 2003, pp 32-36
See Thomas Powers on "intelligence politics" in the December 4, 2003 New York Review of Books (pp 12-17) and Bruce Cumings, "Wrong Again: The US and Korea," in the December 4 London Review of Books (pp 9-13) Elizabeth Drew, "Pinning the Blame: The 9/11 Commission Report" in The New York Review of Books, September 23, 2004
Mark Danner "Abu Ghraib: The Hidden Story" The New York Review of Books, October 7, 2004.
Recommended background reading to the debate and Congressional Hearings on the NSA surveillance of US citizens:
Thomas Powers, "The Biggest Secret", The New York Review of Books February 23, 2006, pp9-12.

On-line: Measuring overseas perceptions of the US and public diplomacy
http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/14.htm#March2004 (Much data on foreign opinions of US by Pew Foundation).

Radio excerpts:

OIL POLITICS and foreign policy:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5349315
Brief report on Bush administration's decision to accept McCain reform on interrogation practices (npr 12/16/05) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5056512
    Concepts: Realism (or realpolitik) balance of power, deterrence, containment
                        and neoconservatives? http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19618
George F. Kennan and William Fulbright; 'unilateralism'
                        and international law.                        What is the paradox of American power?

The ongoing war in Iraq: Questions and sources (handout) R/65-99                 
IRAN( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/790877.stm)

George Packer (excerpt) The Assassin's Gate http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031124fa_fact1
James Fallows on the failure to develop a police/military capability in Iraq since 2003.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/iraq-army

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/iraq-army.

John Winthrop’s “City Upon a Hill” sermon http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/winthrop.htm
The label “exceptionalism” from Tocqueville’s Democracy in America

George Kennan on "Who won the Cold War? www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/04/documents/x.html

Two great supplementary readings (not required but very useful updates on the war on terrorism and the overall
situation in Iraq are David Cole, "Are We Safer?" http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18752 and Peter Galbraith,
"The Mess" in the March 9,2006 edition of the New York Review of Books on p 27.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18771

sidebar: Iran

sidebar: Saudi Arabia
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5296524
Dubai-UAE port security contract dispute http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5248979
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5253395
The deal brakes down (3/10)http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/politics/10ports.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255733

Iraq as a kaleidoscope? What are the key indicators of failure or success?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19ohanlon.html?_r=1&oref=login
Congress drops NSA investigation: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/opinion/09thur1.html

Iraq: What went wrong? (Another ‘take’: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5319166 )

Optional: Increasing criticism and opposition to the United Nations in the USA
and General Assembly resolutions in 2005 http://www.atsnn.com/story/149906.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ga10417.doc.htm

A Swedish diplomat looks back –
The Cold War in Retrospect (excerpt) - Hans Blix
www.armscontrol.org/events/20060125_transcript_blix.asp?print

.For background data on Korea see
www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print

Reflections on 9/11: Are we safer now? (optional reading)

NPR interview - The war in Iraq and the terrorist threat:
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?todayDate=archive
under archived titles search for September 15, (2004 interview with)Christopher Dickey
Disagreement within the bureaucracy: ideology, personalities, and 'groupthink'?
Can we easily explain the distortions about Iraqi nuclear deals and WMD's?
The implied link between Al Qaeda and Iraq; Public opinion data and
the President's belated admission Intelligence gathering, analysis and advice. How is it organized and how does it work?

Intelligence community politics and policies (continued)
Politics in the intelligence community: agencies, analysis, advice and 'dirty tricks'
The NSA and project Echelon
(supplementary reading at http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/23342.html )
Graham Allison on WMD proliferation (handout/essays)

 A useful essay on US foreign aid/economic development assistance
is found in The New Yorker March 18, 2002: John Cassidy's "Annals
of  Economics: Helping Hands" pp 60-66. See also the  Sokolsky
and McMillan essay on "Foreign Aid in Our Own Defense"

Rosati's comments on mainstream and alternative media sources:
Is the media liberal?
Concepts related to the public and its beliefs, ideology, and the media
Why are words such as liberal and conservative problematic and misleading?
Public opinion, polls and electoral politics: Concepts related to Congress
and the Supreme Court (divided government, judicial restraint, rally round
the flag phenomenon, intermestic issues, etc.) 

*****************************************************************************************

Some historical roots of American exceptionalism:
selected excerpts:

John Winthrop's “city on a hill” sermon in 1630:
In "A Model of Christian Charity," a sermon Winthrop preached during the voyage to America, the Massachusetts governor emphasized that the purpose of their going to America was to increase the body of Christ and to preserve themselves and their children from the corruption of this evil world. The colonists had made a 'covenant' together to obey the commandments of God in their enterprise, and the Lord would surely bless them in their new land if they continued to follow Him. If they maintained Christian unity, Winthrop was certain "the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us as his own people...when he shall make us a praise and a glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantations: the Lord make it like that of New England: for we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us."

Winthrop's imagery of the model Christian society as a city on a hill, taken from Matthew 5:14, became a motif that has inspired American literary and political thought into the twentieth century. From Winthrop and the Puritans, America inherited the idea that in some way this land was to be an example and beacon of light to the rest of the world.

During the 1630's, over 55,000 Englishmen fled to America. Half of these settled in New England, and Winthrop wrote in his journal that "Godly people in New England began now to apprehend a special hand of God in raising this plantation." Winthrop devoted the last two decades of his life to establishing the Massachusetts Colony. He was a pivotal figure in New England's critical early decades.

Washington’s Fairwell Address: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm

Monroe Doctrine:

In Monroe's message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we
have always called the Monroe Doctrine, although in truth it should have been called the Adams Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the American continents were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of American affairs.

Although it would take decades to coalesce into an identifiable policy, John Quincy Adams did raise a standard of an independent American foreign policy so strongly that future administrations could not ignore it. One should note, however, that the policy succeeded because it met British interests as well as American, and for the next 100 years was secured by the backing of the British fleet.

For further reading: Dexter Perkins, The Monroe Doctrine, 1823-1826 (1927); Samuel Flagg Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (1949); Ernest R. May, The Making of the Monroe Doctrine (1975).

---

THE MONROE DOCTRINE (Text)

... At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal had been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers....

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the result has been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course....

Source: J.D. Richardson, ed., Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 2 (1907), 287.

Ironically, the name of the doctrine was invoked to justify persistent US military interventions in the affairs of Caribbean and Central American states beginning in the late 1800's. This development became known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, most recently pronounced by the Reagan administration in 1983 with the invasion of the tiny island state of Grenada.    www.historicaldocuments.com/TheodoreRooseveltCorollarytotheMonroeDoctrine.html

International law(s)

A. Sources (custom; general principles and precedents; treaties, bilateral, multilateral)

B. Treaties most important (as a contract; voluntarily entered into; consensual)

1. Steps required – signatures; ratifications, deposition

2. Types of treaties

Protection of diplomats

Commerce

Intercourse among states at sea; air travel fishing rights, etc

Conflict prevention

Laws of war (see examples below)

Human rights

QUESTIONS about torture-

- What are the consequences likely to be if and when the USA promotes the torture of criminal suspects?

What does it say about the USA and us if we condone the practice of torture?

- Is it moral/ethical/humane to condone or engage in the practice of torture in the interrogation of criminal suspects? Is it legal?

Does domestic or international law matter in deciding on such practices or policies?

Excerpts from related international declarations and laws/treaties:

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Geneva Protocol on the treatment of prisoners of war (1929 and 1949)
. . . the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

The UN Protocol on Political and Civil Liberties (1976)
Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Article 8
No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
No one shall be held in servitude.
No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour

The International Convention Against Torture (1984/87)
PART I Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Conventio