Discussing the impact of individual U.S. states on the nation's foreign policy, Denning and McCall cite cases in which other nations have been targeted by state and local sanctions, which the authors say are unconstitutional. They review a Massachusetts statute that banned companies that did business with Burma from bidding on contracts to supply goods to that state. A U.S. appeals court eventually struck down the statute, and Massachusetts has appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has yet to hear the case. "Local sanctions represent an attempt by states to co-opt the power to set foreign policy" -- a power that, under the Constitution, "clearly allocates to Washington," the authors contend.

Lindsay, James M. LOOKING FOR LEADERSHIP: DOMESTIC POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY (Brookings Review, vol. 18, no. 1, Winter 2000, pp. 40-43)

The American public, while not isolationist, remains disengaged from foreign policy concerns, believing that "no major challenge to U.S. security exists" in the post-Cold War era, Lindsay says. Likewise, Congress, while largely desiring an active role in foreign policy design, is "divided by chamber, party, ideology, region, committee, and generation." The result, he says, is little coherence or agreement on how foreign policy should proceed. He says more presidential leadership is needed to overcome legislative gridlock.

Rabkin, Jeremy. FROM KOSOVO TO KANSAS (The American Spectator, vol. 32, issue 11, November 1999, pp. 62-63)

Noting the often contradictory executive and legislative branch stances in foreign policy debates, Rabkin says that a decade ago, conservatives routinely criticized what they termed congressional micromanaging of foreign policy, while today, liberals scorn the restrictions placed on American leadership by congressional conservatives. He cites two Clinton administration foreign policy initiatives (Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993), noting that they lack congressional support because of their impact on domestic affairs. He disagrees with those who say the only way to break such foreign affairs impasses is for Congress to allow the president more leeway in international negotiations. On the contrary, he advocates firmer congressional involvement in order to prevent the president from negotiating commitments that cannot be honored or enforced.

Rieff, David. A NEW HIERARCHY OF VALUES AND INTERESTS (World Policy Journal, vol. 16, no. 3, Fall 1999, pp. 28-34)

Rieff believes that, under the Clinton administration, geoeconomic questions have been dealt with effectively but geopolitical questions have largely been avoided, or dealt with on an ad hoc basis. The result, he contends, has been that neither U.S. allies nor adversaries have had a clear idea of what direction U.S. policy will take next. "Effective policy-making needs to have as clear a sense of what involvement and commitments cannot or should not be made, as about what must be done even when sacrifices are required," he says.

Tucker, Robert. ALONE OR WITH OTHERS (Foreign Affairs, vol. 78, no. 6, November/December 1999, pp. 15-20)

Tucker examines the unilateralist and/or multilateralist tendencies of U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. He notes that the role of the United Nations "in determining the circumstances legitimizing force" has expanded considerably during the Clinton administration. "Pressured by its European allies," he writes, "the administration accepted this expanded role for the Security Council and thereby may have created significant obstacles for future administrations confronted by the need to employ force and, in doing so, to act alone."

Zoellick, Robert B. CONGRESS AND THE MAKING OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY (Survival, vol. 41, no. 1, Winter 1999-2000, pp. 20-41)

Tension between the Executive and Congress over foreign policy is neither new, nor a unique product of the end of the Cold War, the author says. Under the U.S. Constitution, and based on experience, he notes, the two branches of government must develop U.S. policy by sharing powers and resolving their "creative tension." Zoellick says that trade policy and the use of force are two critical areas where the experience and evolution in congressional processes are most evident and where, with vision, consultation, and an openness to debate, the present generation of political leaders can strive to meet national aspirations.

----------

The annotations above are part of a more comprehensive Article Alert offered on the International Home Page of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State: http://usinfo.state.gov/admin/001/wwwhapub.html.

Principio de p・ina