SPECIAL ANALYSIS FOREIGN POLICY COMMITMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES College Debate Series AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH 1200-17THSTREET, N.W. -WASH/NGTON, D. C. 20036 THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH, established in 1943, is a nonpartisan research and educational organization which studies national policy problems. Institute publications take two major forms: l. LEGISLATIVE AND SPECIAL ANALYSES - factual analyses of current legislative proposals and other public policy issues before the Congress prepared with the help of recognized experts in the academic world and in the fields of law and government. A typical analysis features: (1) pertinent background, (2) a digest of significant elements, and (3) a discussion, pro and con, of the issues. The reports reflect no policy position in favor of or against specific proposals. 2. LONG-RANGE STUDIES - basic studies of major national problems of significance for public policy. The Institute, with the counsel of its Advisory Board, utilizes the services of competent scholars, but the opinions expressed are those of the authors and represent no policy position on the part of the Institute. ADVISORY BOARD Paul W. McCracken, Chairman Edmund Ezra Day University Professor of Business Administration University of Michigan Karl Brandt Loy W. Henderson Professor of Economic Policy Director, Center for Diplomacy Emeritus and Foreign Policy Stanford University American University Felix Morley Milton Friedman Editor and Author Paul S. Russell Distinguished Service Professor of Economics Stanley Parry University of Chicago Professor, Department of Political Science University of Southern Mississippi Gottfried Haberler Galen L. Stone Professor E. Blythe Stason of International Trade Dean Emeritus, Law School Harvard University University of Michigan George E. Taylor Director, Far Eastern & Russian Institute University of Washington OFFICERS Chairman Carl N. Jo cobs Vice Chairmen Henry T. Bodman Clyde T. Foster H. C. Lumb President Treasurer William J, Baroody Henry T. Bodman Thomas F. Johnson Joseph G. Butts Director of Research Director of Legislative Analysis Howard Friend Earl H. Vass Director of Public Finance Analysis Director of International Studies FOREIGN POLICY COMMITMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES College Debate Series October 14, 1966 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE----------------------------------------------------------- ix CHAPTER I. POST-WORLD WAR II UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY COMMI'IMENTS-------------------------------------------- Introductory Essay------------------------------------ 1 I. The Legacy of World War II--The United Nations------ 1 II. From San Francisco to Containment------------------- 4 A. The Failure of Cooperation--------------------- 4 B. The Truman Doctrine---------------------------- 5 III. Economic Commitments-------------------------------- 6 A. International Economic Organizations----------- 6 B. The Marshall Plan------------------------------ 8 C. Aid for Economic Development------------------- 10 1. Technical Assistance---------------------- 10 2. East-West Rivalry------------------------- 11 3. Developmental Financing------------------- 12 (a) Public Law 480---------------------- 12 (b) Development Loan Fund--------------- 12 (c) Multilateral Approach--------------- 13 D. The Kennedy-Johnson Programs------------------- 14 IV. United States Military Policy----------------------- 16 A. Latin America------------'---------------------- 16 1. The Monroe Doctrine----------------------- 16 2. The Act of Chapultepec---·----------------- 17 3. The Rio Treaty---------------------------- 18 4. Organization of American States----------- 19 5. Rifts Between Good Neighbors-------------- 19 6. Security in the 1960's-------------------- 20 B. United States Military Policy in Europe-------- 21 1. The North Atlantic Treaty----------------- 21 2. The Mutual Security Act------------------- 22 3. German Rearmament------------------------- 23 4. NATO in the 1960's------------------------ 23 - i - 1 1 CHAPTER C. United States Military Policy in the Middle East----------------------------------------- 25 1. The Cold War------------------------------ 25 2. The Baghdad Pact-------------------------- 26 3. The Eisenhower Doctrine------------------- 27 4. Continuing Middle East Crisis------------- 28 D. United States Military Policy in the Far East-- 29 1. The Legacy of World War 11---------------- 29 (a) China------------------------------- 29 (b) Japan------------------------------- 29 (c) Korea------------------------------- 30 2. The Korean War---------------------------- 30 3. The War in Indo-China--------------------- 32 4. Geneva Conference------------------------- 32 5. Southeast Asia Treaty Organization-------- 33 6. The Southeast Asian Dilemma--------------- 34 V. Epilogue-------------------------------------------- 36 Bibliography------------------------------------- 37 II. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSITION------------------------------ 39 Introductory Essay------------------------------------ 39 I. Definition of Terms--------------------------------- 39 A. "Foreign Policy Commitments"------------------- 40 B. "Substantially Reduce"------------------------- 43 1. Total Abolition of All Commitments-------- 43 2. Renunciation of Certain General Policies-- 43 3. Structural Change in or Abolition of Com­ mitments Without Changing Underlying Policies-------------------------------- 44 4. Reduction of the Amount or Extent of Sup- port Without Alteration of the Structural Commitment------------------- 44 5. Gradual Reduction of the American Commitment------------------------------ 44 6. Transfer of the Commitment From One Channel to Another---------------------- 44 7. Reducing the Duration of the Commitment--- 45 II. The Goals and Determinants of American Foreign Policy-------------------------------------------- 45 A. Determinants of the Existence, Strength, and Duration of American Foreign Policy Commitments---------------------------------- 46 1. Geographical Position of the United States 46 2. Wealth, Natural Resources, and Industrial Growth---------------------------------- 46 - ii - CHAPTER 3. The American Government and Political System--------------------------- ------ 47 4. Presence of Large Numbers of Ethnic Groups in the American Population-------------- 47 5. American Devotion to the Democratic Form of Government--------------------------- 47 6. Close Relationship Between Diplomatic and Military Affairs------------------------ 48 7. Desire for Reciprocal Commitments--------- 48 8. The Emergence of the United States to World Leadership After World War II----- 48 9. American Leadership in the Formation of the United Nations---------------------- 49 10. American Development of Atomic and Nuclear Weapons--------------------------------- 49 B. Current Goals of American Foreign Policy------- 49 III. The Machinery of American Foreign Policy: How Com­ mitments are Undertaken--------------------------- 51 A. The President and Foreign Policy Commitments--- 51 B. The State Department and Foreign Policy Commitments---------------------------------- 54 C. Congress and Foreign Policy Commitments-------- 54 1. Senate Approval of Treaties--------------- 55 2. Legislation of Joint Resolution----------- 55 3. Declaration of War------------------------ 55 4. Appropriations---------------------------- 55 5. Investigations---------------------------- 56 D. Other Branches of the Government and Foreign Policy Commitments--------------------------- 56 1. United Nations Mission-------------------- 56 2. United States Information Agency---------- 56 3. National Security Council----------------- 56 4. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency------- 57 S. Peace Corps------------------------------- 57 6. Central Intelligence Agency--------------- 57 IV. Affirmative Strategy: General Considerations and Questions----------------------------------------- 5 8 A. By What Standards Should American Foreign Policy Be Judged?---------------------------- 58 B. What Aspects of American Foreign Policy Warrant Criticism?----------------------------------- 58 C. Is the Policy or the Commitment the Source of the Failure?--------------------------------- 59 D. If the Commitment is at Fault, in What Respect? 59 E. How Would A Change in the Particular Commitment Affect the Whole System of American Foreign Policy?-------------------------------------- 60 - iii - CHAPTER F. What Additional Benefits May Follow From the Proposed Reduction?-------------------------- 61 G. Are the Proposed Reductions Within the Spirit of the Resolution?--------------------------- 61 V. Negative Strategy: General Considerations and Questions----------------------------------------- 61 A. Substantial Reduction of Certain Commitments Might Affect the Value and Credibility of American Commitments Generally--------------- 62 B. Substantial Reduction Might Cause Retaliation by Other Nations----------------------------- 62 C. Substantial Reduction Might Upset the Delicate Balance of International Relations or Intro- duce Serious Inconsistencies----------------- 62 D. Substantial Reduction Might Create A Vacuum Into Which Communist Power Could Move-------- 62 E. Substantial Reduction Might Have Adverse Ef- fects on the American Economy---------------- 63 F. Defense of American Foreign Policy Commitments in the Three Major Areas of Controversy------ 63 G. Defense of Minor American Foreign Policy Commitments---------------------------------- 63 Discussion Questions-----------·------------------ 65 Bibliography-------------------------------------