Foreign policy bureaucracy and organizational structures

Foreign Policy Bureaucracy

How do the executive and legislative branches -- given the dynamics of the American political culture -- influence and/or shape U.S. foreign policy? This paper will discuss that issue and present an example of how the executive branch and the U.S. Senate act together and work together -- responding to a Constitutional provision -- to complete an important foreign policy treaty.

Russian Arms Reduction Agreement

Working together can be a sticky issue between the two branches because typically the executive branch wants to determine its own foreign policy without interference from Congress. That said, most often the executive branch will consult with key members of Congress in sessions that are behind closed doors -- and the press is not invited nor are members of Congress who are privy to the executive branch's plans authorized to make the discussions public.

Meantime, one important aspect of foreign policy in particular -- treaties with foreign countries -- brings the executive branch and the U.S. Senate together in the decision-making process. In this particular case President Obama negotiated a deal with the Russians earlier this year, and both sides agreed to cut down the number of strategic nuclear weapons, from the current ceiling of 2,200, to 1,550. In order for that treaty to be ratified, two-thirds of the members of the U.S. Senate must vote "yes."

Some background into how the treaty came about is worthy in this paper; members of the Senate do not go out to foreign countries and negotiate treaties, it's the executive branch that is responsible for that diplomacy. Representatives from the executive branch, like the Department of State, for example, may well be part of the strategy to frame a treaty with a foreign nation. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed the agreement last April, but the Senate just began debating the issue in mid-December.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve (by a two-thirds vote) any treaty made by the executive branch. The Senate has rejected "relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered" throughout the history of the United States, according to the United States Senate Web site. Other treaties, however, have died in committee or actually have been "withdrawn by the president" if he is sure he doesn't have the votes to pass the treaty into law (www.senate.gov).

The Senate Web site also notes that the president may enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that do not have to go through the senate, but for important treaties, the Senate is part of the "checks and balances" that the men who wrote the Constitution wanted to see in place.

Article II, section 2, of the Constitution says the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (www.senate.gov).

This particular treaty would seem to be an easy one to approve, since having 1,500 powerful nuclear warheads would seem to be not only adequate but overkill. The U.S. And Russia reportedly have about 90% of all the nuclear weapons in the world. So if this treaty makes sense for both sides, and shows a newfound sense of cooperation between the two nations that were Cold War enemies, why would there be dissention in the U.S. Senate?

That question can be answered a couple different ways. For one, there is a very divided and hostile political situation in Washington, D.C.; during the past two years the major pieces of legislation that Obama has pushed through have received not a single Republican vote. Obama's stimulus bill, $862 billion, that many economists say helped avoid a depression, did not get a single Republican vote. The biggest reform of Wall Street in the nation's history passed without a single Republican vote, and likewise, the healthcare reform act, a "major overhaul" -- that will provide 30 million Americans with health coverage and will prevent the health insurance industry from canceling policies just because a policyholder gets will -- did not receive any votes from Republicans (Tapper, 2010). The reasons Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and the Democrats are not clear, but it seems obvious that conservatives do not want to see Obama get any legislative victories.