Foreign policy decision making
(FPDM) or foreign policy desiccant making refers to the selections individuals, coalition and groups undertake that has an effect on the action of the nation on the international arena. High stakes and substantial risks, naturally characterize the decisions in foreign policy. FPDM is a vital center of research since the decisions made can shape the final choice. For instance, depending on the choice taken, an actor can land at different outcomes. Factors such as decision environment, international factors, psychological factors, and domestic factors can contribute to better determinant of foreign policy decision (Mintz 4)
This policy favors one party, since the president can make decisions solely regardless of public opinion. For instance in the case of Bosnia peace keeping, the then president bill Clinton, sent American troops to keep peace when almost 70% of the American people rejected the notion. In addition, President George Bush started a conflict with Iraq despite the facing tough international pressure regarding the action. In spite of international treaties regarding peace, most presidents do not adhere to the rules that govern these foreign decisions making. When encountered with foreign making decision, there is immense pressure from the domestic and international actors, on the president. One could disagree that the president evaluates the domestic and international pressure, and then reaches his decision based on what he views to be superior public policy. This version of the decision Making process is too simplistic. It is my declaration that the degree of capital accessible to the president mediates the decision.
Presidents are well aware that foreign policy successors, or failures, have expectations penalty for their term in office, hence, they end up choosing politically rational options. The essence of foreign policy decisions involves a decision process carried out in an interactive setting, consisting of decisions sequences. The majority of these foreign decisions are conducted under stress of time. Four components consists of Foreign policy decision making, they include:
Identifying the decision,
Searching for an alternative,
Choosing an alternative,
Executing the chosen alternative,
Foreign policy has four features that include political, security related, internal, external, and economic. These aspects have a bearing on our society and those of others. A successful FPDM protects our national interest, preserves and enhance our status and power, without being unfavorable to the national interest and power of other nations. A few factors have contributed to a more complex process in foreign decision-making: first, there is the appearance of ethical issues such as democracy and human rights, and disarmament of weapons, as vital components of the political aspect in foreign policy. Secondly, there is also the growing trend towards higher trans-nationalization of the foreign decision-making because of the contact on the process of a country involvement of international and regional trade. There is need for an inspection of the merits and demerits aspects of our foreign decision making process considering other countries in order enhance the quality of the decision-making.
Inter-agency role and process
The day-to-day inter-agency is successful in producing coordinated policy selection and decisions; it requires additional planning and coordination tools for meeting demands and providing direction in response to a compound emergency. Before integrated pol-mil planning emerged, the inter-agency provided common strategy to USG agencies involved in operations on the ground. This scenario mostly resulted in the U.S. agencies differently understanding the general missions and objectives. In addition, individual agency urbanized and attempted to carry out its sole approach to an operation in relative isolation. Despite of military having to plan before deploying units, the Department of Defense (DOD) mostly did its planning in isolation, canceling its operations without allowing other agencies any details of the designed military procedures.
The inter-agency is a traditional process that manages supervisory branch decision making when there are multiple agencies of the government involved. There is a different set of actors in each major area for formal and informal plan governing the activities of the inter-agency. The National Security Council (NSC) is the most senior inter-agency organization, with four statuary members, namely, the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense. In the National Security Act of 1947, the inter-agency process is administered by the National Security Council regarding national security matters.
The role of the inter-agency in today’s management of national security matters remains constantly similar throughout. The NSC inter-agency process identifies and formulates policy options and raises issues to the right department for decisions within the NSC board. Its role also sees it supervise the execution of guidelines decisions and dictates decisions where necessary. The inter-agency process involves hard synchronization in and among the agencies of the decision-making branch. The drawback of the process is that it can lead to a slow and cumbersome, since every agency introduces its own philosophy, culture, and bureaucratic well-being.
Three characteristics of crisis management distinguish inter-agency from the normal policy decision-making process. The first being the amount of time needed for deliberation is short, secondly, the decision that concerns the feedback to a complex emergency is coordinated in Washington and on the fields as well. Lastly, compound emergencies regularly involve agencies inside the USG that are not commonly team of the national security policy-making structure. Any crisis method must include these agencies and ensure their viewpoints are sufficiently incorporated into the USG response.
Raison d’état
On the other hand, raison d’état, or reason of state, is the fundamental concept of national conduct, that sees a country justifies its political diplomatic and diplomatic acts, the state’s first law of motion. In general, it addresses the idea that the security and steadiness of the state is supreme, and all the government’s procedures should be directed to this end. It informs the diplomat what he must execute to preserve the status and strength of the state. Raison d'état indicate the path that the state need for its growth in power since the state is an organic structure that needs nurturing. The paths and target goals are not chosen at random, nor can the same goals be set for all the states. Raison d’état may be repelled or stalled by bona fide and unreal barriers, but its element of the ruling.
Raison d’état involves government’s action that are considered unlawful, and immoral under normal circumstances. A famous author, Machiavelli is credited as the first current writer to analytically discuss raison d’état. His book the prince is the idea that the action of every ruler is justifiable only if it guarantees peace, stability, and prosperity of the state. In his view, he endorses murder, deceit, cruelty, and violence so long as they directed towards the good deeds. He dictates there is a crucial level of injury and violence that rulers cannot ignore.
The secret is to make the best out of the cruelty involved, and actions that injure a few individuals are better than those that harm a large society. In relation to today’s society, the majority of leaders prefer raison d’état as they cite it is of national security and the lives of a few terrorists, or insurgents can be traded for the well-being of the community at large. This notion can be seen in the formation of colonies as a way of conquering new territories. The territories grabbed deprive a few individual of their lands and homes, but are preferable to an army occupation, that inures and hurt the occupants in the territory. It is difficult to split raison d’état from pure self-interest, and the dubious actions that upholds the health of the state, from the individual ambitions of the ruler. Due to this reason, raison d’état has been associate with tyranny.
Works Cited
Alex Mintz, Karl DeRouen Jr. Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. London:
Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print
Gott, Kendall D. U. S. Army and the Interagency Process: Historical Perspectives.
Pennsylvania: DIANE Publishing, 2010. Print
Meinecke, Friedrich. Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison D'État and Its Place in Modern
History. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1957. Print
