Introduction
Setting out rules for the policies that are implemented through the international relations is viewed as a significant factor for each country. Roger Hilsman, Jr. in fact has set out his contemporary foreign policy which pointed out to a unique receptivity that includes some important elements of a country. Analyzing a foreign policy basically means an empirical study where in how a state makes its policies and greatly plays a significant role in understanding the international and domestic policies, as well as the perspectives which interferes with the international relations theory and public policy.
It also falls on the grounds of diplomacy, war, organizations which are in the government and significant permissions where by it depicts the channel of the state to put into practice the foreign policy (Waltz, 1993). Relatively, Hilsman set out in creating a classical foreign policy which comprise of the levels where in it was initiated by the President of the state down to the media. It involves the President, National Security Council, Intelligence, Congress and Media.
As such, Hilsman also developed the ideas which rely under each significant level that primarily has something to do with the function of the state. However, a highlight on the intelligence aspects of his model was seen to be emphasized as it uniquely illustrated its perspectives on how it will be impacted on the people. Many people agree to the idea that an important function of the intelligence is to provide warnings with regard to the unsympathetic plans whether in a political or military sense of other countries. They suppose that this kind of information will be coming from intelligence and officials from the government and more informed laymen argue for they have trust in those intelligence units who are devoted in research and analysis (Hilsman, 1952).
This model is viewed to be the initial step in giving the intelligence an overview on the policy in order to free the state through various tasks. The efficiency of Hilsman’s model largely attributed to becoming policy- oriented of the people with the specifications of what the discipline sets out its idea. Irrespective of the organizational positions deliberated by the model, intelligence somehow prevails to be not effective because the power almost comes from the people though the President merely leads the state.
But of course, foreign policies always portray a big influence towards the whole system of the state. It serves as the basis of each rule that carries the implementation of other sub- organization to be able to effectively promote the objective of such policy. Thus, efficiency can further be viewed on the outcome of the international relations on how the impacts will be reflected to the key players in the model which starts from the personality of the leader down to the wider environment of the media and followed by its radical people.
This should be taken as an essential outlook for it accounts the greatest power coming from everybody’s substance of authority. In addition to, the attitudes of the leader of the state is also accountable for the impact of foreign policies globally for his visions that largely makes up almost all any other elements. Assessing the model therefore goes to the perception of being positive with what it will bring and that considers more than half of the percentage of the probability of the models’ affirmative result (Hilsman, 1952).
Accordingly, this model of Hilsman needs a separation for knowledge and action though they have to intervene. The link between knowledge and action should act together but in a distinguishing manner. Knowledge and action then should be two of the most important aspects that should be taken into consideration in order for the model to function. However, Hilsman’s model can be somehow giving more power to the political sense of the state.
Discussion
Constructing a model for a foreign policy which will relate to the National Security Council should rely on the US Foreign Policy and other considerable sources that will substantially back up the theories. Initially, an assessment of the international and domestic political environment should be made. Creating such foreign policy is comprised of the two major element and implemented as well that must be comprehended by a state to be able to determine the best foreign policy choice (Clarke, 1989).
As such, the National Security council for the state’s defense department apparently proposes a strong security for the whole state significantly the President. An objective has to be set most especially in identifying specific policies because this largely scopes a wide and multifaceted system of issues. The model to be created should be recognized by which will affect the international and domestic scenes of such country just like what happened between the case of Japan and US in World War II (Krasner, 1978) that basically gave the hints for main alterations in the area of security.
Moreover, the tensions in a foreign policy may arise among its objectives and this may be apparent to the need of segmenting each areas of responsibility by prioritizing the defense system of the state. However, determining the policy options of a state presents series of ideas on what particular policy choices are feasible in order to satisfy the objectives that are set in consideration with the political environment (Rosecrance, 1986).
Inclusion of the state’s ability to handle such security system is a must and how it possibly faces the risks of the policy through its implementation. In addition to, formal foreign policy actions through its implementation are then being visualized overtly and the most significant is in sensitive areas like the military system of the state. The decisions on foreign policy are normally done by the government’s executive branch and hence, model to be created is therefore be initiated by the head of the executive branch.
General governmental institutions that make foreign policy decisions accounts for the head of the state which is certainly the President or perhaps the leader of the government like the prime minister or the cabinet (Clarke, 1989). Thus, the implementation of the policy modeled for the National Security Council should be taken account by the specialist foreign policy arms of the state bureaucracy like the State Department or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs however; this could also be under the defense system.
In creating a model which will be specific to the National Security Council, a rational choice theory is viewed to be applicable where in it regards the state as the most important unit of consideration and international relations (Clarke, 1989). The state is also viewed as a monolithic unitary actor that can perform essential tasks such as making of rational decisions that came from the perspectives of ranking and maximization value.
In this model, in addition to, the process of rational decision making comprise of setting its objectives and ranking them accordingly after the evaluation of its possible outcomes and the maximization value. However, it has been criticized widely and this model seems to reject a set of political variables that involves the decisions coming from a political body, non- political significant body, procedures in bureaucracy, continuations of previous policies and sheer accident that widely affects the total system.
The statement of Waltz (1993) regarding the matter of effects of International relations to other countries apparently comprehends with the area of development of such foreign policy for the defense system of the state. This prevails that the foreign policy does not really have to command other states and those under the foreign policy have the freedom to execute the grounds according to the body which governs the policy under the National Security Council. This also implies that poor decisions and depending on a single state takes away the freedom and will power of a state. Substantially, a defense system foreign policy model should start from the President and followed by government bodies that will further evaluate the proposals of making such policy including the issues related to the military system.
A consideration for the welfare of the people is the main criteria that should be viewed in order to fully come up with a decision for the options set to assess the security system in an international scene. Giving a highlight on the fact that making a policy for the Security Council will largely have an impact on the safety of the state (Krasner, 1978), and intervene with a world wide matter. Divisions of sub organizations greatly matters for having the different perceptions of the majority through the assigned groups in a particular area. State leaders are not the sole authority and handle the power over the whole state.
It merely suggests that a need for decision makers other than the leader is a must in creating a model for a sensitive case like this (Krasner, 1978). It is important to note that the past experiences after the World War II and other significant issues which relates to the security policies of the state consequently affect other defense system of not only the other states but also the smaller countries that depends on the United States.
A clearer illustration follows the pattern which suggests having the president in the top position and followed by set of decision makers for the policy followed by the people. Media though appears to be a significant factor in the area of communication but sometimes the people matters first because the objectives caters to the welfare of the people. Media, press people as such are just channels for the complete implementation of the foreign policy.
Giving more details on this attributes to emphasize the role of the leader as the head of the state, followed by the sub organizations such as the different departments that will handle the decision making for each significant area relating to the agencies of National Security System such as the military forces in air, land, navy and other significant positions. This should be vitally assigned because this will greatly impact on the defense system of the state (Rosecrance, 1986). However, this would also mean a direct relation to the people as to the state’s international relations. This typically implies that the leader and the sub organizations can not assume the power and authority solely without the opinions of the majority through the media.
An interbranch political model can be described through the proposed theory and directs the disciplines for accomplishing an affirmative result (Clarke, 1989). With the interference of political concerns, the leaders need to be active and possessed such attitude which will be productive enough and be able to contribute for the apparent success (Rosecrance, 1986). A certain phenomena is seen on the political structure of a state which shows that political leaders are the most influential people in the territory and thus directs the policies according to his or her interest.
But, this approach can be attributed to a different one for a model of a foreign policy and may seem to be ineffective because it does not seek for the opinions and suggestions of the majority unlike having sub groups which will manage various systems of implementation. Also, this may serve as the channels of building a mainstream that will eventually bring the links of other bureaucracies into a single system.
Another model to be justified is for the CIA. This should also be taken as a sensitive area because it considers the welfare of the people as well as the whole state. CIA’s should be handled by the state leader and balance its roles and responsibilities which will benefit all (Krasner, 1978). The model should also account for a state leader, followed by the sub organizations and under the respective sub organizations fall the roles of CIA. This can be illustrated by an inverted triangle where in the top most level is occupied by the state leader, followed by the different sub organizations and then the CIA and the bottom level is comprised of people and media. In this case, political affairs are given much importance because CIA is a more specific detail of a state.
Conclusion
Foreign policies specifically in National Security Council should therefore be probable for the resolution of such major issues in peace crisis. It largely accounts for the maintenance of order through the state and its international relations. Cases such as the terrorism threats can be viewed under this field and determines the efficiency of the policy when a particular dilemma was set out to a better view (Clarke, 1989).
Considering the proposed model which divides the decision making into the different governing bodies may comprehend to a successful execution of the international relations of the state. This may apparently result minimizing threats for the state as well as develop a good relationship towards other countries most especially those who are seen to have less power than other giants for the defense system.
Generally, creating a model for a foreign policy considers the factors that will greatly affect the entire state. Another important aspect to cater aside from people is the media or the channels in which these things are applied and implemented.
In the world today, it has been prevailed that innovation serves as a driving force that initiates both the negative and positive relative issues in the defense systems of the state as well as its international relations with other different states and countries. Thus, a global intervention should be taken account in order to completely visualize that a certain policy is effective. However, the leaders still prevail to be the most powerful people who have the authority in manipulating the policies the international relations of a state.
References
Clarke, M. 1989. ‘The Foreign Policy System: A Framework for Analysis’, in M. Clarke and B. White (eds) Understanding Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy Systems Approach (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), pp.27–59.
Hilsman Jr., R. 1952. “Intelligence and Policy- making in Foreign Affairs”, World Politics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-45.
Krasner, S. D. 1978. “Defending the National Interest”, ed. By Andrew K. Hanami, Princeton University Press.pp. 101- 104.
Rosecrance, R.N. 1986. “Rise of the Trading State”, ed. By Andrew K. Hanami, Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. pp. 400- 403.
Waltz, K.N. 1993. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics”, International Security, pp. 44- 79.