Us Foreign Policy Final Exam

Front 1

Oslo Declaration of Principles

Back 1

PLO and Israel agreed to mutual recognition; PLO abandoned call for destruction of Israel and Israel would withdraw from Gaza (halted by Rabin's assassination)

Front 2

Operation Allied Force

Back 2

NATO bombardment in Kosovo

Front 3

Dayton Accords

Back 3

1995 - sent NATO troops to Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia

Front 4

Russian-NATO Founding Act

Back 4

1997 - Russia given voice but no veto in NATO policy

Front 5

Partnership for Peace

Back 5

1993 - former Warsaw Pact members and Soviet republics invited to become junior members of NATO

Front 6

Maastricht Treaty

Back 6

1992 - creation of EU (system of "dual sovereignty" w/ common foreign security policy)

Front 7

Haiti; 1990s

Back 7

symbol of Clinton's lack of resolve in foreign policy

Front 8

Operation Restore Hope

Back 8

troops sent to Somalia to provide food and order

Front 9

Disengaged America

Back 9

1) threat is overactive foreign policy; beyond borders is not crucial an US has little power to influence outcome
2) minimal responsibility to other states; primary concerns are economy and military
3) minimal global responsibility; not fault of US and US cannot solve everything

Front 10

America the Balancer

Back 10

1) primary threats are self-inflicted (security commitments to protect economic interests)
2) limited responsibility to other states; they are responsible for themselves
3) responsibility to community is limited; national interests and global order are not identical

Front 11

American Crusader

Back 11

1) international system has real and imminent threats to national security that must be defeated
2) responsibility to allies in its cause
3) responsibility to international community is great, but based on historical traditions

Front 12

Pragmatic America

Back 12

1) primary threats are still military
2) responsibility to other states on a selective basis and only to extent threats to political security would lessen American security
3) responsibility to global community is limited; more responsibility to key partners

Front 13

Reformed America

Back 13

1) primary threat is continuous fixation on military problems and power-politics thinking
2) responsibility to other states is great provided they are democratic
3) responsibility to global community is great but centered on a system conducive to American values

Front 14

US as an Ordinary State

Back 14

1) greatest threat lies in doing to much w/ a large definition of national interest
2) responsibility to other states is proportional and reciprocal to other states
3) US should be a good global citizen

Front 15

beggar-thy-neighbor policy

Back 15

currency evaluation, tariffs, etc: enhancing domestic prosperity by quotas, subsidies (export-led industrialization)

Front 16

Brezhnev Doctrine

Back 16

once Soviet army is occupying a country, they won't leave

Front 17

Case Act

Back 17

required President to submit report to Congress of all international agreements w/in 60 days of their execution

Front 18

Clinton Doctrine

Back 18

stopping ethnic cleansing

Front 19

cognitive balance

Back 19

people screen our information that runs counter to beliefs

Front 20

collegial model

Back 20

executive decision-making model that emphasizes teamwork and group problem solving where the President is the hub of the wheel and the spokes are advisers/agency heads

Front 21

competitive model

Back 21

approach to executive decision-making where the President seeks to promote conflict

Front 22

counterforce

Back 22

nuclear weapons strategy that targets your enemy's weapons and military

Front 23

dependency theory

Back 23

periphery depends on center (Leninism); explains underdevelopment

Front 24

doctrine of political questions

Back 24

judicial construct that enables the courts to sidestep contentious foreign policy issues separating Congress and President

Front 25

dollar diplomacy

Back 25

money as a way to influence Latin America

Front 26

3 conditions for offshore balancing

Back 26

1) fluid system
2) should be a balancer
3) no hegemonic power

Front 27

grand strategy of offshore balancing

Back 27

stat matches ends and means in pursuit of security

Front 28

conditions if US took an offshore balancing strategy

Back 28

1) balance of power strategies are superior to hegemonic
2) economic interdependence is a danger rather than a comfort
3) credibility of the US using extended deterrence will be degraded
4) US strategy need not be concerned w/ credibility or reputation
5) US has a strategic depth advantage (oceans)
6) risk of a rival Eurasian hegemon is small
7) US grand strategy can confidently assume other states will balance against a potential hegemon
8) dynamics of alliances favor offshore balancing strategy

Front 29

3 examples of offshore balancing

Back 29

1) Kosovo/Bosnia
2) Libya
3) Iran/Iraq war

Front 30

extended deterrence

Back 30

US strategy to extend military umbrella for allies

Front 31

gatekeepers

Back 31

function of mass media in shaping how it conveys news to public

Front 32

inadvertent audience

Back 32

people who are exposed to foreign affairs through the news

Front 33

intervening variable

Back 33

(Vietnam) factor links an independent to a dependent variable

Front 34

iron triangles

Back 34

defense contractors/interest groups, defense bureaucrats, and Congress

Front 35

linkage theory

Back 35

Nixon and Kissinger

Front 36

1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference

Back 36

US, Great Britain, USSR, and China draft UN Charter

Front 37

1945 Mexico City Special Inter-American Conference on Problems of Peace and War

Back 37

concessions to smaller states:
1) organization is universal
2) role of GA is bigger
3) ICJ has power to address conflict between states
4) gave right to form regional organizations

Front 38

non-aligned movement

Back 38

about 130 countries (ex: voted against US to take case of constructing walls in West Bank to ICJ)

Front 39

1936 US v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation

Back 39

President told Curtiss-Wright to stop selling military arms to Paraguay/Bolivia, court upheld right of President to embargo goods: established president as "sole organ of federal government" in foreign affairs

Front 40

1920 Missouri v. Holland

Back 40

Supreme Court established primacy of federal government over states in treaties

Front 41

1937 US v. Belmont / 1942 US v. Pink

Back 41

Supreme Court upheld executive agreements

Front 42

1952 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer

Back 42

reversed Curtiss-Wright; President ordered steel workers off strike due to war and violated Taft-Hartley Act

Front 43

1971 NYT v. US

Back 43

Pentagon Papers / Ellsberg; 1st amendment freedom of press outweighs Presidential claims to national security

Front 44

1979 Goldwater et al. v. Carter

Back 44

Court said Senate must specify role for itself in termination of treaty

Front 45

2004 Rasul v. Bush

Back 45

Court rules non-citizens seized during military operation have the right to use American courts

Front 46

2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld / Rumsfeld v. Padilla

Back 46

Court rules citizens seized overseas also have access to American courts

Front 47

2008 Boumediene v. Bush

Back 47

Court rules terrorists must have access to court

Front 48

role theory

Back 48

your behavior is determined by the role you hold in the administration rather than views

Front 49

satisficing

Back 49

bureaucracies and bureaucrats are content to select an alternative that meets minimal acceptable standards

Front 50

trip wire

Back 50

Carter Doctrine (Iran): if you do this we will...

Front 51

twin pillars strategy

Back 51

Nixon

Front 52

2 step flow theory of communication

Back 52

ideas don't flow directly from mass media to general population but rather are transmitted from opinion leaders

Front 53

2 war strategy

Back 53

(Reagan) US should be able to fight 2 wars

Front 54

aircraft carriers

Back 54

1) don't need permission from home states
2) used as an instrument of diplomacy when there is a crisis

Front 55

Hamiltonian presidents

Back 55

commerce-oriented approach; seeks power and wealth through economic means

Front 56

Wilsonian presidents

Back 56

idealistic, diplomatic agreements; international organizations/international law and human rights, democracy

Front 57

Jeffersonian presidents

Back 57

hands-off cautious foreign policy; involvement will hurt domestic institutions by wasting lives and money; setting example with isolationism

Front 58

Jacksonian presidents

Back 58

isolationist, but once in a war demand total commitment; simple protection of jobs and strong military

Front 59

examples of US Congress shaping foreign policy

Back 59

1970 Repeal of Gulf of Tonkin
1974 Soviet Jewish immigration
1978 Reservation to the Panama Canal Treaty

Front 60

War Powers Act of 1973

Back 60

significant check on presidential powers; President can commit troops but must report to Congress w/in 48 hours and may deploy for only 60 days w/o consent of Congress

Front 61

13 economic instruments of foreign policy

Back 61

boycott, dumping, devaluation, embargo, foreign aid, free trade, grants, loans, non-tariff barriers, quotas, sanctions, strategic trade, tariffs

Front 62

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

Back 62

signed by Clinton, shot down by Senate

Front 63

Smoot-Hawley Tariff

Back 63

protectionism, caused the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which allowed the President power to cut tariffs if he could negotiate reciprocal tariffs with other countries

Front 64

INS v. Chadha

Back 64

struck down legislative veto as unconstitutional

Front 65

Munich analogy

Back 65

the need to confront dictators/aggressors rather than make concessions or pursue appeasement

Front 66

Helsinki Accords 1975

Back 66

gave Soviets recognition of territorial borders in Eastern Europe but established human rights and democratic values

Front 67

Carter Doctrine

Back 67

protection of the Persian Gulf

Front 68

Reagan Doctrine

Back 68

rollback of communists

Front 69

Weinberger criteria

Back 69

1) vital national interest
2) total commitment/overwhelming force
3) clear objectives
4) reassessing and readjusting when necessary
5) support of American people
6) last resort

Front 70

neoconservatism

Back 70

American ideals define America's purpose to be achieved through use of America's superior force

Front 71

prerogative encroachment

Back 71

loss of freedom of action the US incurs in making key foreign policy decisions subject to multilateral approval

Front 72

policy enhancement

Back 72

freedom of action the US gives up by acting multilaterally is outweighed by capacity gained to achieve shared objectives

Front 73

Vegas dilemma

Back 73

what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but what happens in states does not stay in states

Front 74

Powell Doctrine

Back 74

overwhelming force

Front 75

3 strengths of UN

Back 75

1) near global membership
2) UNSC carries a unique normative legitimacy
3) scope of UN programs are geared to full global agenda

Front 76

revolution in military affairs

Back 76

mastery of electronic and info tech gave US unprecedented conventional military capabilities

Front 77

shuttle diplomacy

Back 77

Kissinger w/ 1973 Arab-Israeli war

Front 78

Camp David Accord

Back 78

Carter negotiated between Egypt and Israel, making it the first Arab state to make peace w/ Israel

Front 79

primordialist theory

Back 79

ethnicity is a fixed and inherently conflictual historical identity

Front 80

purposive theory

Back 80

ethnicity is historically shaped but not determined

Front 81

just war

Back 81

1) just cause
2) proportionality of military means
3) strong probability of success
4) force as a last resort

Front 82

theory of ripeness

Back 82

Zartman; at certain points in the life cycle of conflicts, they are more conducive to possible resolution than at others

Front 83

CNN curve

Back 83

lots of attention is given to humanitarian crises to raise awareness and pressure officials, but negative coverage of casualties cause a steep drop in public support