Journal publishing and academic communication

¶ … foreign policy is one of extreme sensitivity especially for a country such as the United States that is the main actor of the international scene. The main role in the foreign policy of the U.S. is represented by the President; however, given the nature of the constitutional arrangements in the U.S., this role is always shared with the Congress. Julien Zelizer's book "Arsenal of Democracy" is a well documented account of the foreign policy of the U.S. since the end of the Second World War and how the role of the president and that of the Congress interlink in the establishment and conduct of the foreign policy perspective and management.

The book in itself is not necessarily a historical account of the events that marked the foreign policy of the U.S. during the Cold War but rather a fine analysis of the major events that shaped the directions of this foreign policy in a difficult context that was created by the Cold War and the confrontation of the West and the communist forces represented mostly by the U.S.S.R. The author provides a view on the general context with particular focus on the way in which this context marked and influenced the conduct of foreign policy from the perspective of the American administration. This is an important aspect to be taken into account because it provides an input to better understand decisions taken at the administration level of the American presidency. During the Cold War, the threats were numerous and diverse. From the threat of nuclear war to that of guerrilla war, the world as a whole and the U.S. In particular did not foresee the challenges facing foreign policy decision makers and the implications these had on the global context. Until the beginning of the Cold War the aspect of globalised world was not that obvious despite the fact that the world was in the early stages of recovery after a global war. The imminent threats of the expansion of communism in half of the world however determined a particular approach from the democratic countries led by the United States. Therefore, the approach provided by the book is representative for portraying more clearly the rationale behind certain decisions affecting the American foreign policy and the developments taking place in the world during the Cold War.

One representative aspect of the book is the depiction of the Carter Administration during the late 70s and early 80s when much of the discussions on foreign policy were dealt with in terms of party politics. More precisely, the book sets out to argue that American foreign policy after the end of the Second World War was conducted in such a manner as to eventually benefit the party of the Administration. The author provides sufficient evidence in this argument most of them related to the Nixon or the Kennedy administrations. These choices are not random. During these administrations, the Vietnam War was fought and lost. Seeing that the book focuses on the issue of democracy, it is important to consider the fact that the Vietnam War was one of the most difficult wars to support from the point-of-view of the public opinion. It did not only resulted in the loss of lives of American troops but it also takes into account the way in which the public opinion was somewhat manipulated in supporting the war for almost a decade. There was a clear political rationale behind the involvement of the U.S. In the Vietnam War and it did not relate to an imminent threat to the United States. It was however an essential move for the foreign policy of the United States in its quest for containment of the communist threat.

A proper example of the way in which the decisions taken in terms of foreign policy were the reflection of the interests of political parties vs. their electorate was the Carter administration that took some of the most important steps in the discussions with the Russian Communist forces on human rights issues. Better said, usually the first steps in improving the diplomatic relations with a country or a set of countries is the start of negotiations on smaller and less important aspects for the political forces. One such subject, in the late 70s and early 80s was the discussion on human rights. As opposed to the more stringent and real problems the U.S. had with the U.S.S.R. that included nuclear threats or economic competition, the issue of human rights was considered to be a good and digestible starting point for reconsidering diplomatic dialogue between the two sides. In this sense, President Carter managed to include his Democratic Party's doctrine and the need for a more open foreign policy in the same strategy. More precisely, "the President hoped to move the nation beyond Vietnam, seeking strategies to achieve peace with the Soviet Union, while strengthening the image of the Democratic Party on national security. Carter pursued all of the hallmarks of detente, including arms negotiations, trade agreements, and territorial compromises" (Zelizer, 2010).