Topic 7 – Intelligence agencies, CIA 06/03/2013
Three rails of FP: diplomacy, military action, intelligence activities.
Focus on the one hand on open govt, free flow of info, checks and balances to ensure govt respects rule of
law. On the other hand, needs of security – secrecy and efficiency. Democracy vs national security.
In intelligence, secrecy and efficiency clash to the greatest extent.
US has around 16 different intelligence agencies, we’re just covering the most important ones.
Intelligence = information. Accurate info about intl developments, states needed to project US power in the
US relative latecomer to intelligence operations compared to European counterparts.
WW2 – Office of Strategic Services. Cryptology (enigma code)
NSA created 1952. ‘No Such Agency’. National Security Agency more prominent in media in last 10 years –
involved in controversial eavesdropping program initiated by Bush administration.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: claim by NSA that eavesdropping was done out of
necessity. Couldn’t get search warrants etc because it’s inefficient, creates publicity so intelligence
gathered is compromised. Gave them warrants in less than 24 hours after request. FISA court has never
denied any administration any request to eavesdrop.
Bush and Obama also have blocked any attempts by civilians to sue telecom companies because it violates
NSA functions = cryptology. SIGNIT = signals intelligence.
Also National Reconnaissance Office (photographic intelligence traditionally supplied by spy planes) and
National Geospace Intelligence Agency (satellite recon, has a fleet of secret satellites whose capacities are
Defence Intelligence Agency (intelligence on US adversary mil capability) etc been developed because mil
doesn’t trust regular intelligence agencies.
CIA also has its own defense agencies, bureau of intelligence and research.
State dept first to indulge in research in 19 century, but actual research not spying.
Also there’s the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Hehe. Established in 1928 to expand activities engaged in
by its first head, J Edgar Hoover. Aim was to round up communists (because postRussian rev and civil
war), but also went after organized crime during prohibition. Developed Gmen then. Also involved in investigations of money laundering, increasingly now also terrorist attacks and their
CIA has multiple branches: Administration, Science & Technology Division, Directorate of Operations ▯
National Clandestine Services (hidden hand/third arm of US govt in FP).
Considerable coordination problems ▯ politicization of intelligence. Each agency is a bureaucracy
and has its own interests, with own goals – most imp being funding.
Also creates problem of stove piping – individual pieces of intelligence don’t get vetted by various
hierarchies, but rather make their way from source to decisionmakers. Bypassing the process frequently.
Agencies tend to shape information to please those at the top. E.g. with Iraq war, memo from Downing
street saying Americans were ‘fixing’ intelligence to suit policy. (Rumsfeld, Office of Special Plans for
exactly this purpose) Pressuring agencies, creating new agencies to suit purposes is the problem.
Cherry picking: so many diff agencies ▯ contradictory information, so decisionmakers pick and choose
the intelligence report most useful to the policy they are implementing, rational or not.
This is why intelligence has been a massive failure in the US. Only a few examples of successful
intelligence gathering. Biggest failure: 1989 – no idea that USSR was about to collapse! Also big failure was
9/11 – they said no one expected it, but US agencies had a ton of clues e.g. August 4 report stated explicitly
that Osama Bin Laden may use civilian airliners to attack targets within the US. Also all terrorists entered
US with legitimate visas – said they’re going to conferences, couldn’t name what ones – State dept screw
up. FBI and CIA didn’t share intelligence with each other, etc. Also 9/11 should not have occurred because
there is a structure in the US to prevent such things from happening. Bureaucracies resp e.g.
Transportation Safety Board – when a aircraft loses communication, should basically immediately be
working to take it down.
Response by Bush admin to reduce politicization: creation of Dept of Homeland Security, budget of $35
billion a year. Idea of bringing all intelligence services under one umbrella – Customs, immigration
naturalization service, air traffic control stuff, fed emergency management agency, secret service
transferred into Homeland Sec. Also creation of Director of National Intelligence to coordinate all the work
of diff agencies. However CIA director doesn’t report directly to DNI – real solution?
Reading author: huge quantity of data worthless when it doesn’t reinforce what US policymakers want to
hear. CIA Natl Clandestine Service – long history.
CIA as well as Directorate of Operations created by National Security Act 1947.
Functions of DofO are:
A) to manipulate foreign elections (e.g. establishment of Christian Dem Parties in Italy and Germany to
offset possible moves to the Left after WW2). Most imp one was IranContra affair. Most successful one
was Guatemala 1953. Elected a reformist who modeled himself on FDR. United Fruit Company – major
shareholders John Foster Dulles and Alan Dulles (head of CIA). Reforms attempted to seize land,
perceived as communist and damaged these key interests. Partisan resistance movement on a UFC farm in
Honduras. Honduras started bombing Guatemala city, taking over a radio station, pres Jacobo Arbenz fled.
Ended up inciting a 30 year war in Guatemala, 1/3 pop dead.
Became the model for later operations like Bay of Pigs. But Castro aware of what they’d done, and wasn’t
as unnerved as Arbenz.
Recent incidents: Libya, Syria
B) overthrow and destabilization of governments – supporting authoritarian governments or insurgencies to
Allende in Chile, 1970s. Wanted to get rid of relatively Leftist Allende. Chile was well established L
American democracy, and Chilean army was apolitical.
General in charge of army in Chile assassinated, replaced by Pinochet, coup.
Also obviously ongoing attempts to assassinate Castro.
D) Training intl security forces
Nicaragua Samoza: forces trained by CIA as well.
Also in El Salvador.
Training people also in methods of interrogation – waterboarding, electric shock etc.
CIA banned from undertaking operations within US – violated that in the 1950s and 60s. E.g. Operation
Chaos to infiltrate antiVietnam movement. COIP telecom scandal to infiltrate civil rights movement etc. MK
Ultra – experiments with psychological warfare, created LSD.
Peter Dale Scott: herapolitics or ‘deep politics’ because such activities hidden from the public to a
Some people say Americans are unaware but other people the world over are aware.
US has been involved in all these activities since WW2, but history of it parallels history of the executive
branch in general. CIA basically operated with very few restrictions (19471970s, the good old days) because Congress
was acquiescent at the time. Began in places like Iran, Guatemala.
But origins of CIA are from the fight against communism in South East Asia from closing days of WW2.
Heated up after Chinese revolution, support offered to KMT under Chiang Kai Shek which eventually
escaped to Taiwan.
Also Burma, Laos, Cambodia used to subvert Chinese govt and get into mainland China.
Clandestine operations here – supplied arms, bombing campaigns, funds (***) through drug trade.
Anticomm struggle ▯ Golden Triangle of opiates, heroin in the 1950s70s.
Various front companies operated by CIA, most notoriously Air America, were flying arms into Burma, Laos
etc to anticommunist groups and bringing heroin back to USA. Hard to get numbers, but centre of anticomm
activities was also centre of drug trade.
PostVietnam, opportunities to ship drugs out of SE Asia diminished, drug trade in that region diminished as
Next major hotspot was cocaine trade in South America, esp Colombia – coincided with end of Vietnam
war. Anticomm activity now concentrated in South America, hmmmm.
Initially worked because of the anticommunist liberalconservative consensus in Congress ▯ president had
blank cheque in international affairs.
Breakdown of the consensus (and of the ‘good old days’) ▯ establishment of Congressional oversight
exposed CIA wrongdoings and put limits on what they can do.
Pres Ford issued an executive order stating US would no longer be involved in assassinations – established
it as the norm until aftermath of 9/11.
Church and Pike committees – Senator Frank Church and Congressman Pike in Senate and HofR
respectively – investigated activities of CIA.
Oversight by Congress continued under Bush and Obama. Strictly limited – select few members of specific
committees briefed on activities of CIA by the CIA. But can’t take notes, or ask questions.
CIA expanded after 9/11 – considerable paramilitary capacity (drone program). Partially managed by Joint
Special Operations Command of DOD in Afghanistan and then CIA plays dominant role in Pakistan.
So greater overlap between Pentagon and CIA actvities, and between CIA and DOD activities.
People at head of CIA and DOD – interesting. Under Bush, head of CIA initially Leon Panetta ▯ became
DSec! Replaced by General Petraeus, played a strong role in Iraq and Afghanistan etc. Author of a field
manual on counterinsurgency and counterintelligence activities for Afgh and Iraq. FM 324 Topic 8 – Economic community, NEC 06/03/2013
Frieden: outlook into intl realm after WW1 – US now dominant econ power, hegemon potentially – unwilling
to take on this role.
Changed by WW2. Also greater threat of potential adversaries. Move in a direction that US couldn’t reverse
was evident to Roosevelt administration. Found itself negotiating ways to remain in control even before end
of WW2 – Bretton Woods.
Free market ethos of the US represented in it. GATT allowed US easy access to markets and resources in
those markets – promoting open and free trade (now WTO), International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development for reconstruction of Western Europe which US needed for econ growth and dominance – ran
Marshall Plan (now for developing countries, World Bank), IMF.
US appoints head of World Bank, big role. Point was to prevent statism, communism or anything. By
providing aid to states, World Bank was assuming state would take dominant role in growth and
development. But US didn’t want strong state – countries had to demonstrate that they can’t take the same
loans from private sources. World Bank basically makes third world countries go into debt for development,
so those attempting to gain econ independence through less export reliance failed miserably.
Aid to countries to build things there etc – outsourced to private American companies, so profit comes back
to the US.
IMF – supposed to stabilize intl system by providing short term credits to countries with BOP deficits. IMF
finds a country in trouble, sends advisors etc and puts in a Structural Adjustment Program.
These countries aim to export more and import less. SAPs: First recommendation = devaluation. Second =
reduce social safety nets – unemployment spending, etc. Third = lower wages. All unpopular because
people are poor, need the safety nets, can’t afford to have their currency worth less because their products
aren’t even good enough for them to make money.
US clearly played a dominant role in econ policy since WW2. Econ policy affects domestic pol + intl
relations ▯ intermestic policy.
Problem: of coordination. Vast array of bureaucracies involved in econ policy making. State dept foremost
agency before WW2, then moved towards Treasury and other bureaucracies like Dept of Agriculture (food
Strategic interests like oil, etc.
No way to have a centralized bureaucracy for econ policy. Seen initially as less important than national
security policy (start of Cold War). US went through a transformation in 19 and 20 centuries, where econ
policy was high policy – WW2 and Cold War reversed that.
Changed after USSR collapse – foreign econ policy more dominant, especially under George HW Bush. He
was VP under Reagan, elected 1988 – successful president in FP. Got credit for bankrupting USSR,
somehow. Topic 8 – Economic community, NEC 06/03/2013
Got General Noriega, pres of Panama, into US to face drug charges without much civilian casualty loss.
Also managed to oust Iraq from Kuwait.
So in 1992, George HW Bush seemed to be a shooin. Bill Clinton won with the slogan ‘It’s the Economy,
stupid!’. Idea that FP is less imp than economy right now – must deal with domestic stuff, unemp etc. Econ
policy in the 1990s became high policy again.
Clinton created NEC in 1993 as a counterpart to NSC. Created a National Economic Adviser as well. Used
to coordinate policy, advise president, monitor implementation of econ policy.
Clinton seen as successful in establishing econ foreign policy.
First head of NEC: Robert Rubin, exemployee of Goldman Sachs. Key employee Larry Summers – driving
force behind deregulation of Wall Street. Part of 1930s New Deal Topic 8 – Economic community, NEC 06/03/2013
Clinton succeeded in reducing unemployment a bit, able to reverse reliance on budget deficits a bit (had
started around Vietnam).
GlasSteagall Act, 1933: created banks insured by federal deposit insurance company, and also
investment houses like Goldman Sachs, that could invest in whatever they wanted but not backed by
Summers and Rubin overturned this. Idea of mortgagebacked securities – they’d get mortgages, and then
sell them out as investments. Investments backed by other people’s houses ▯ subprime lending. More
lending = increase in house prices, so people took out more mortgages on their houses to pay for things on
the assumption that house prices only go up, never down.
Obama so took office in a full on financial crisis. Larry Summers became Chief Financial Adviser under
Obama, so went back to people who started the problem in the first place. Also Ben Bernanke. Shaped
response to crisis – stimulus package, tax cuts, bailouts. Policy of quantitative easing: buying
financial assets from financial banks and commercial institutions so as to increase money supply. Flooding
banks with credit doesn’t really allow banks to use that credit.
Econ bur has its own agenda – purporting a free market ethos, increasing US trade.
With China – schizophrenic policy. US criticism for devaluing their currency, etc.
Washington consensus contains different aspects:
Penchant for deregulation – deregulation of banking industry, for example.
Policies towards other states similar to IMF’s structural adjustment programs – privatization, devaluation,
lowering of taxes, cutting govt spending, encouraging FDI in developing economies, eliminating
protectionism (open markets), interest rate liberalization.
1960 – US invested $85 billion in foreign economies, foreigners invested $40 billion in US. By 2007, US
invested $17 trillion and foreigners invested more than $20 trillion.
Trade: surplus in the 60s, by 2008 US imported a lot more than they exported. Shortfall of $681 billion. By
2010 there was a slight improvement, but still a big deficit.
US able to maintain debt because debt is in USD. Everyone’s debt is in USD, but US is the one who
manufactures the currency so could easily get out of debt by relying on printing money (as a last resort).
That could hurt the value of the dollar in the long run but US would still survive. Topic 8 – Economic community, NEC 06/03/2013 Topic 9 – Elections, IGs 06/03/2013
Conventional idea is that elections don’t impact US FP based on the idea that ‘politics stops at the water’s
Essentially means that FP in an idealized form is in defense of the national interest. NI is something that
unifies the US, and therefore neither party is likely to depart from the defense of that national interest.
FP = largely bipartisan, great deal of continuity between administrations.
Also must factor in US political parties.
US constitutional system not created with pol parties in mind – Madison argued that the purpose of the
constitution was to thwart the development of parties, prevent them from gaining strength. Saw pol parties
as factions, a threat to republican forms of government.
Sees factions as groups of individuals who share a ‘passion’ – okay as long as they represent minority
groups or just are a small number of the population, but if they approach majority it’s an issue.
System essentially included regional but not ideological representation.
Every member of Congress knows its their specific voters who decide their fate – not anyone within the
party ▯ very rare for all members of a party to vote the same way. No need to obey the party line,
60, 70 years ago: Republicans dominant, Democrats were the minority party. New Deal realignment
allowed Democrats to gain enormous influence.
FP doesn’t really come up in discussion of party platforms, etc.
Very rare for a president to win an election based on his FP platform – won on domestic issues. E.g.
George HW Bush focused on his FP successes, Clinton on the economy and Clinton won.
Exception: Obama 2008 win over Hilary Clinton was due to his FP – their domestic politics were almost
Idea that elections don’t impact FP doesn’t mean FP doesn’t impact elections. FP failures impact elections
very strongly, especially for a president seeking reelection.
Affected Carter’s chances at reelection in 1980. Big FP failures: Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua overthrown
by Sandinistas, collapse of the Shah’s government in Iran, failure to rescue American hostages in Iran. Topic 9 – Elections, IGs 06/03/2013
Obama – represented a change in US FP orientation. Quick withdrawal from Iraq, although he did focus on
winning the war in Afghanistan. In general though, once he was in office nothing really changed. Changed
the rhetoric of FP, but no real change from Bush.
While goals are similar, the means to achieving those goals are different. Democrats have a tendency to
rely on multilateralism. E.g. Bush administration liked to reject other help, not be cooperative with the
UN etc – US unsigning itself from the Rome Treaty. Appointed Bolton, an open UN critic, as ambassador
Obama much more open to using the UN and multilateral approaches in general UN authorisation before
multilateral intervention in Libya.
In the same vein, Republicans rejected US joining the League. FDR put in place Bretton Woods, Nixon
Republicans inclined towards unilateral use of power, reject use of intl institutions and vice versa.
Electoral realignments happen as well.
New Deal realignment – brought Democrats into prominence until well into the 1960s.
Under Nixon, Republicans used the Southern strategy. Democrats supported by Southern states, Nixon
used race issues/tensions to realign that vote.
Renewed Republican revolution since 1994 – more partisan politics.
US unique because of how interests manifest themselves in the policymaking process, both domestically
Use of lobbying: talking to members of Senate or HofR between sessions of Congress to convince them
of a certain cause.
Enshrined in constitution – law of organisation.
Because of Bill of Rights, citizens can petition govt about their grievances. Numerous access points
provided to citizens for influencing policy.
Because of idea of protection of minority rights enshrined in constitution as well.
E.g. of success – National Rifle Association – has been able to block any legislation attempting to restrict
ownership/sale of guns. Also able to do this when trends were against them e.g. after Sandy Hook.
Regulations relaxed or not enforced, guns without background checks etc.
Elections aren’t a good way of influencing policy – better off focusing on what happens between elections,
influencing specific decisionmakers and their votes.
Congress provides easy access to decisionmakers – unlike Canadian government, because everyone votes
based on what they think and not on a party platform. Topic 9 – Elections, IGs 06/03/2013
Executive branch as well – firms can get you access to key decisionmakers. Slightly diff set of institutions
that has easy access – e.g. Kissinger and Associates can be hired to give you access to the exec branch
because of his personal influence.
Good thing is that lobbying campaigns are effective and affect policymaking.
Limits that exist: regulations regarding campaign contributions – how much you can put behind a candidate.
But recent SC decision, Citizens United decision, said that curtailing this would be a violation of
freedom of speech. And also established that organisations, including persons, are counted as individuals –
have the same rights as individuals. Role of corporations and money interests in influencing elections gone
up a lot as a result.
Insider approaches to influencing:
Access to power approach to influencing policy.
Also technocratic approach: providing info to decisionmakers and media to influence debate about a
Other two approaches:
Coalition building – uniting diff groups who favour the same policy for diff reasons and influence
policy that way.
Grassroots approach – demonstrations, rallies, protests etc. Used by ‘astroturf’ e.g. Tea Party, which
claims to be grassroot and raised in opposition to Obama’s policies, but actually was funded by very rich
people from the start.
Few key lobby groups that have had an enormous impact:
China lobby: 1950s lobby consisting of business leaders with a strong interest in maintaining access to
Chinese markets – didn’t like communist takeover in China. Cemented relationship between US and
Cuba lobby: advocated confrontational policy towards Cuba, again disapproved of communism there. Cuba
seen as a national security concern to US, US didn’t manage to convince some of its Latin American
neighbours of the same. Idea that Cuba should be engaged after Cold War, that would help normalize
relations and so embargo wouldn’t be necessary. Opposite happened – right after the Cold War, an act was
passed to increase sanctions etc – probably because of the Cuba lobby! Florida = a swing state,
presidential nominees should rely on Cubans to help swing the vote either way. Many advantages to
normalizing relations – economic, cultural, tourism etc. Hasn’t happened because of Cuba lobby.
Israel lobby: Topic 9 – Elections, IGs 06/03/2013
Lobby groups formed during Cold War – 1940s70s – contributed to anticommunist consensus:
Council on Foreign Relations: established 1920s, response to rejection of League of N. Advocated
internationalist position, wanted US to maintian global and moral position of leadership. Political centrists –
changed a bit since Bush, moved towards the right. Now is the mouthpiece of the FP establishment.
Members come from 3 groups – intl lawyers, bankers, corporate executives; academics (e.g. Kissinger,
Brzezinski – not American, used academia to get in); key Washington govt people and bureaucrats. Not
classdetermined, but orientation obviously represents conservative and dominantclass interests.
Veterans and military support groups Topic 9 – Elections, IGs 06/03/2013
Business groups e.g. US Chamber of Commerce
Labour unions and labour groups e.g. American Federation of Labour and Congress Industrial
Organisations (AFLCIO). Surprising, labour unions seen as soft on communism. Lab unions legalized in the
1930s, but under AFLCIO control – bread and butter unionism. Helped institutionalization of
unions, as long as unions would limit demands to bread and butter issues (wages, working conditions).
Sharp contrast to previous approach, where labour unions also advocated for role of labour in company
management. Opposite: Germany – current unemp rate of 5%, US near 10% officially. Rule that any
organisation in Germany representing more than 500 people have 49% of the board be made up of labour.
Opens the books to demands etc. Bread and butter approach common in Latin America e.g. in Venezuela.
Religious groups: influence dissemination of contraception, abortion laws etc. Important in relation to the
Middle East – Israel Lobby consists of many Christian fundamentalists who base their thing on biblical
prophecy. E.g. AIPAC, proIsrael lobby consisting of mostly Americans, created in response to Suez crisis
1957. But in the last decade or so, AIPAC now been closely aligned to Likud party in Israel – party people
are wary of in Israel.
Iron triangles: relation between exec branch (bureaucracies), Congress and interest groups.
E.g. Forestry service – need to regulate the industry but also propagate its interests. Recruit experts i.e.
people who work in the industry for advice, but those people are likely to be sympathetic to their causes.
Within Congress, states heavily dependent on forestry industry (Oregon, Washington) – Forestry industry
plays a role even in campaigns so elected officials also support these interests.
Military industrial scientific infrastructure: emerged out of Manhattan Project, which was a
joint effort between military, academics and relevant corporations to develop nuclear weapons.
Executive branch (DOD): supplied with food, weapons etc by private industries who consequently have an
interest in mil spending and budget. Military obviously wants to maintain its budgets. Last thing is
universities – research and development takes place there.
Corporations like Lockheed Martin etc don’t benefit from foot soldiers being trained and sent abroad –
benefit more from the development of high tech systems.
Conservatives say its hostile to them, and liberals as well.
Journalists: somewhat of a bias towards skepticism of the govt.
Journalists provide raw material but not the actual opinion. Topic 9 – Elections, IGs 06/03/2013
1870s – diff organisations/corporations support diff papers. Businessoriented ones had fewer readers,
higher prices etc.
Changed at the end of 19 and beginning of 20 century – William Randolph Hearst. Cut labouroriented
papers out of the picture ▯ homogenization of the news media. Papers tending to be read by lower classes
also tended to be more conservative. E.g. NYT is extremely rightwing.
Process exacerbated by greater and greater concentration of media ownership.
1980 – 50 companies competing in media market, some specialized in newspapers radio TV etc. Then
groups like Rupert Murdoch’s started creating a media empire. Time Warner, Disney, ViaCom, General
Electric. Narrowed scope of what’s covered by newspapers, less focus on investigative journalism.
White House press conferences – media doesn’t even really maintain its adversarial relationship with govt.
Asking any untoward questions could basically ruin your career.
Govt provides media with information in a context that puts their policies in a positive light. What varies is
media willingness to play along. Gone through various cycles in the last few years, with regard to
Congressional assertiveness, pres power etc.
Media as a business.
Media coverage of FP in the 50s70s was highly complimentary, didn’t try to effect change or criticize
Breakdown of CW consensus led to media becoming more critical. Pentagon papers, NYT vs Nixon.
High watermark continued through 1980s – media crucial in exposing IranContra scandal and other things.
But after 9/11, media became sort of complicit. Propaganda model for Bush administration ▯ Iraq war.
CIA document revealed by Wikileaks: US in trouble over their image abroad, need to change that. Hmmm.
Obama popularity. Glen Greenwald, writer for the Guardian.
Media role in creating a consensus around FP: role of entertainment media. Reinforces tendencies of
E.g. shows like 24 put forth ideas of terrorists, need to torture them for information etc.
Alternative media: NYT etc don’t have the monopoly as a source of news now. Video games, independent
In US, democracynow.org. Topic 9 – Elections, IGs 06/03/2013 Topic 10 – decisionmaking theory 06/03/2013
Complex interdependencies (eg. b/w US and Mexico) US has all sorts of different interests and sources of
conflict in Mexico that push and hold US as a hold and various actors in various different directions (eg.
Mexico as a supplier of energy oil and gas; tourism; trade (NAFTA); water rights; pollution)
Operation Casa Blanca damaged USMexican relations?
Realists (Graham Allison) states acting in IR realm are rational actors that organize bureaucratically in a
hierarchical manner where authority is centralized with a key decision maker. Process is centralized, open
to all options, and making and implementation is rational
(eg. Kennedy Administration during the thirteen days)
Rational actor model exception to the overall rule not garuanteed to conclude in success, but more likely
to result in success than other models
*not all policies reach presidential attention in his administration*
Government politics model for issues that do not rise to presidential attention. Policies are rather
to be shaped as a result of compromise b/w various stakeholders of that policy. Each bureaucracy has its
own stakes and interests and will try to maximize their interests. But at times fail to achieve the US goals.
Organizational Process model also deal with policy matters that do not rise to presidential
attention. Tries to emphasize the extent to which all bureaucracies have their standard operation
procedures to organize their shit, and when confronted with a problem, they deal with it through
o (First gulf War Saddam’s forces entered Kuwait in August)
**after cold war, nations were most likely to attack their neighbours bc they did not fear the superpowers
being drawn into the conflict**
Fighting Season dependent on weather?
Groupthink Model derives from Erving Janice for Tendencies that can be presidential attention
o Groups do not behave the way we think they behave
o Refers to other aspects of group dynamics Topic 10 – decisionmaking theory 06/03/2013
o Centralized, hierarchical but not rational
o Groupthink is rational model theory without openness and not all policy options are put on the table
o Ind’v participants recognize that they are alienated from the group and tailor their advice to their
leader (who can demote them or promote them)
Applied to Johnson administration during Vietnam no one took the stance of nonescalation in
Applied to 9/ll and Bush administration and Bush and cheney surrounded themselves with like
Much more likely to lead to disasters
Heightened by the fact that presidents are faced with crisis after crisis that they have to face in a
short period of time (therefore the result is a less than optimal policy) therefore they reduce their group and
policy makers ( takes them away from the rational actor model), reduces tolerace of leaders and result in
sterrotypes in policy, cognitive rigidity familiar decision making rules that seem convenient (application of
metaphorical thinking), tends to encourage search for random info, increased concern for present and not
future, ad hoc communication channels, less communication with adversaries, limits search for alternatives,
polarity of choice, decreases changes to take risk, …. Topic 11 – Civil Liberties 06/03/2013
Relationship with FP in conflict
Up until 14th amendment US constitution only applied to Fed and not the states (so considerable
invasion of privacy at level of states)
Violations of the bill of rights in the name of national security during FP crisis
WW1 Propaganda deliberately trying to influence public opinion in support for the war opinion
o “Four minute men”
Espionage act make it a crime to help the enemy or interfere with the draft (Bradley Manning)
Period after WW1 Red Scare threat of the Russian revolution (FBI first established)
WW2 similar patters Smith act in 1940 make it crime to advocate overthrow of US gov’t
Early 50s rise of McCarthyism – rising action against leftist (Church & Pike Committee) US gov’t
regularly spying on leftist groups
Constitution founded upon protection of civil liberties, mostly towards the end of eliminating colonialism.
But slaves, women didn’t get to vote and didn’t have the same rights as men.
Women got the vote in 1920s, for AfricanAmericans it took till the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Civil rights and liberties expanded over time to include more and more groups. But there were periods of
significant contraction regarding civil rights and liberties.
Coincided with crises faced by US – to some extent, minor crises e.g. expansion of industrial and labour
organisations – created paranoia. Also econ depression, waves of immigration. Most imp are nat sec crises,
especially war (Civil War, when habeas corpus was suspended; WW1, passage of Seditions and Espionage
Act hindered freedom of speech and organisation; WW2, passage of Smith Act which made it illegal to
advocate overthrow of US govt). Aftermath of WW1 and Russian revolution created the Red Scare –
communists, socialists rounded up and imprisoned.
Most prolonged period of contraction was the Cold War, also targeting of certain political groups mostly
associated with the left wing. They were seen as conspiratorial to Soviet Union.
Height of this = McCarthyism, it was believed that he had a list of known comm and comm
sympathizers working in State Dept, useful in propping up his career. Lasted only till mid 1950s, but
extensive investigations by House UnAmerican Activities Committee – if they didn’t cooperate and tattle on
comm and comm sym, they were blacklisted from their professions.
End of HUAC and McCarthy didn’t end contraction of civil liberties – continued throughout 1950s and 60s,
esp because of activities of various intelligence services (CIA, FBI). J Edgar Hoover staunch anticomm,
got more popular as he investigated mafia in 1920s and 30s, but by 1950s he was focusing on anti comm
Civil Rights movement – investigated by FBI as well, focused on MLK Jr. Implicit in his assassination. Also
Malcolm X and nation of Islam. Topic 11 – Civil Liberties 06/03/2013
Also antiVietnam movement. Worst was during Nixon administration, he was very paranoid as well.
After Watergate, many of these policies retrenched and checks put in place so that they wouldn’t occur
again. Frank Church in Senate, Pike committee in HofR investigated – more permanent system of
Congressional oversight over DOD and intelligence agencies established.
FISA act, 1978: Special court for FBI to issue warrants in short periods of time – expansion of civil
liberties but mixed in terms of overall record. Basically ended up prosecuting groups that threatened US FP
– problematic things like support of apartheid S Africa, Contra backing in Nicaragua, FP in Central America.
Didn’t work so well otherwise.
Civil liberty contraction under Reagan never reached the level of Nixon.
Under Clinton, civil rights etc seemed to improve significantly – although recent history has shown that may
9/11 ▯ renewed crisis, far more extreme curtailment of civil rights and liberties than under any other crisis.
Terrorists trying to induce psychological fear, not actually trying to kill as many people as possible (or else
they would’ve targeted a chemical factory, power plant).
Reaction much more extreme because terrorism, as much as it is a threat, is not an existential threat to US
as a state.
Passage of US Patriot Act, 2001 only a few days after the attack: passed with almost unanimous
authority in both acts of Congress. Only 1 Senator, 66 members of HofR who voted against it. Created
domestic intelligence gathering systems of unimaginable technological scale and prowess. Created
provisions for military trials of suspected terrorists, suspended right to private counsel, established notion of
illegal enemy combatants (which sidestepped regulations like how prisoners of war aren’t usually used as
sources of intelligence, not interrogated – took away these rights from them) – basically terrorist orgs are
not organized militia, don’t negotiate peace agreements and have no way to enforce them if they do.
Some people had problems with the constitutionality of this practice, enhanced interrogation techniques etc.
Guantanamo Bay solutions – proven terrorists tried in military courts, others in civilian and ambiguous just
held there indefinitely.
Patriot Act also took away the 1887 Posse Comitatus Act, which made it illegal to use the US military
in domestic law enforcement capacities.
Also enabled spying, prevented people from saying anything against govt: Indian scholar who said 9/11 was
‘the chickens coming home to roost’, implying this was a result of US FP. She was soon sent back home to
India. Topic 11 – Civil Liberties 06/03/2013
Total information awareness project: prevented data mining by giving US access to phone,
credit card, travel records for all US citizens. First appointed head was Admiral John Poindexter (one of the
only people convicted of crimes in IranContra affair, pardoned by George HW Bush).
Glen Greenwald – Obama admin has created a more extensive reach even than TIAP.
Patriot Act also contained Operation Tips: encouraged every American to keep an eye on their
surroundings, inform the govt of any suspicious activity. Hotlines etc.
US patriot act had to be reauthorized every 5 years – so far has been, almost no changes.
Policy in keeping with public opinion after 9/11, 58% Americans thought US should attack whoever was
responsible for 9/11 even if there are 1000s of civilian casualties.
Resistance to these libertychallenging policies by media around 2007 or so. NYT published to do list
saying US should remove the suspension on habeas corpus, account for ghost prisoners, stop CIA prisons,
tighten definition of combatants, stop spying, fairly screen prisoners.
US and international law, intl organisations:
Perception created that US is overall resistant to intl institutions and intl cooperation in general.
Problems like CO2 emission, global warming etc gives off perception that world wants intl cooperation to
deal with intl problems and US is a thorn in the side of this effort.
Plenty of reason to see US from this point of view, but history of these organizations explains a different
picture of US FP and attitudes. Crucial involvement of US in bringing key intl organisations into existence –
related to history of US domestically, evolution of domestic institutions, tendency towards liberal
internationalism and idealism.
This tendency ▯ US trying to expand aspects of its domestic forms of governance through intl system.
Reflects superiority of the rule of law, constitution is supreme and restrains everyone including the govt
Likes to see this reflected in intl norms etc – key role in Geneva Conventions.
US support for intl law and org also stems from their capacities in dealing with foreign affairs. Diplomacy
seen by US as a threat to democracy – required secrecy etc. Diplomacy located in executive branch – any
other experience with diplomacy in foreign affairs would hence strengthen exec.
Idea of changing this with concept of “open covenants openly arrived at” – Woodrow Wilson’s idea – to be
accomplished through League of Nations.
Republicans thought League would drag US in to unnecessary intl conflicts. Topic 11 – Civil Liberties 06/03/2013
Rogers Act 1923 passed to expand FP bureaucracy because if US wasn’t going to join League, they
had to expand their diplomatic core. Still an underdeveloped bureaucracy.
Expansion of US involvement in foreign affairs inevitable after WW2 – creation of United Nations. Neither
League nor UN would have existed without US effort. Same thing true for international law.
Best illustration is aftermath of WW2 – US ex post facto law implementation through Nuremberg trials, etc.
Clinton administration involved in creation of ICC as well. Current NSA Susan Rice was involved in this. US
exceptionalism etc prevents intl law from being able to effectively deal with US things – they end up being
exempt from the impositions of these institutions on the rest of the world.
George W Bush administration unsigned US from Rome Treaty with this justification.
Obama seems to have softer position towards ICC and intl orgs generally, but hasn’t attempted to sign the
US onto it or pass it through Congress.
US – schizophrenic attitude towards intl law and orgs. Democrats favourably inclined towards
multilateralism, Obama trying to stay on good terms with UN.
The United States and Its Perceptions of International Institutions and International Law
Declan’s notes – 12 June. Topic 11 – Civil Liberties 06/03/2013
For the most part, American perceptions of int'l institutions are divided along bipartisan lines:
I. Republicans are against institutions (especially ICC), as they see an institutional system as binding and
creating a degree of interdependency in regard to American foreign policy and FP of other states; argue
that institutions do not adequately reflect American core interests, and therefore should be taken seriously;
their views go hand in hand with those of "Hegemonic Theory", which asserts that international institutions
and the international system as a whole must appropriately reflect the balance of power (i.e., the interest of
the hegemon the United States) or the system is doomed to fail.
a. Are particularly against the ICC, as the worry is that by joining/advocating the ICC, they might potentially
be subject to scrutiny for several controversies in the past decade that have risen from the War on Terror in
the form of unjustified invasions (i.e., false claims Iraq had WMD), and most notably the issue of torture
(i.e., Guantanamo Bay); George Bush actually took the initiative to revoke America's signing in the Treaty of
Rome in 2000.
1. American Service Member Protection Act: "Invade the Hague Act" American doctrine implemented
almost exclusively for protection of American service members and states that the president will bring about
the release of any American servicemen prosecuted under the ICC; for example, if Donald Rumsfeld was
on vacation in the Netherlands, and was arrested and indicted for violations of international law for his part
in the Iraq War, the United States would secure his release "by any means necessary" even "Invade the
II. Democrats for the most part, are more sympathetic to the goals of international organizations and
institutions. Notable reason for this is Democratic adoption of Liberal rhetoric, more specifically, the Kantian
Democratic Peace Theory, which states that higher degrees of cooperation amongst democracies, will lead
to a higher degree of peace/problem solving.
a. in regard to Democratic attitudes toward ICC, Obama has maintained a noticeably milder stance toward it
than Bush, however he has still not resigned the Treaty of Rome and therefore has not given indication that
America recognizes the ICC's legitimacy; his tentativeness in this regard stems largely from the controversy
arising the the issue of drone strikes.
*Relationship with UN
I. At the time of the UN's creation (aftermath of WWII), the US wanted to make sure it did not affect
American core interests
II. Hegemonic Stability Theory: International system must reflect the balance of power (i.e., interests of the
III. 5 members given permanent seats on Security Council (veto power): US, USSR, Britain, France, China;
assumption was by giving veto power to these states, it would avoid the issue of crippling the institution Topic 11 – Civil Liberties 06/03/2013
(i.e., reflecting the more powerful states interests over others), and also would establish a degree of
harmony amongst the five aforementioned states; however, this was not the case;
a. In regard to the United States' situation in particular, there were three primary reasons the UN was less
sympathetic to their goals, and thus did not adequately reflect their interests in entirety:
1. the outbreak of the Cold War so constant conflict with Soviet Union within the security council
2. newly independent nations (mostly in Africa), that were formerly under colonial rule, saw the United
States (being the new economic superpower following WWII), as a sort of new colonial superpower, and
would fill the economicdependency vacuum that their previous colonial rulers held; these newly
independent nations were often in opposition to American views
3. Increasing number of communist countries in Eastern Europe (i.e. Warsaw Pact) under the Soviet sphere
of influence were given seats in the UN, so capitalist incentives in the UN increasingly diminished; as a
result, the United States began to view the UN as a less and less effective means to achieve its core goals
I. Reagan cut off substantial amount of funding to UN to put pressure on it to reform to being more
sympathetic toward American goals; Bush Sr. also did this.
IV. UN and the Monroe Doctrine:
Monroe Doctrine was essentially institutionalized by America in the subsequent formation of the
"Organization of American States" (OSA) which was essentially a United Nations of the Western
Hemisphere. The US enjoyed a substantially larger degree of influence in the OSA than then in the UN
(because of split capitalist/communist interests due to the Cold War), and their ability to dominate the
organization lay in the fact that the United States maintained good relationships with the militarydictators of
the Latin American States, who of course have historically had similar mindsets (i.e., rightwing,
conservative, antileftist/communist, American investment and business interests held in high regard)
a. Cuba was expelled from the OSA following the Cuban Revolution; after the Cold War, every OSA nation
besides the United States and Canada voted for Cuba to be reintegrated into the OSA, but didn't happen.
historically, has been used as an excuse for invasion/intervention when convenient for American interests
1. "R to P" Doctrine: UN doctrine that outlines the responsibility of states to protect other states; however,
this applies to the issue of sovereignty; i.e., states only res