theNSC vs. State: Foreign poli
NSC vs. State: Efficiency in Foreign Policy ProductionThe National Security Council, housed in the Executive Office of the President, is one of the most efficient bureaucratic organizations in our government. The U.S. Department of State, located less specifically but more ominously in the Executive branch, is one of the least. Is the way the State Department works inherently affecting its ability to produce salient foreign policy? Does the fact that the NSC works differently then the State Department really give it an advantage when producing foreign policy? What these organizations are and how they work are the most basic of questions that must be answered in order to understand how their policies differ, and why they differ, and in turn to adequately asses which one is more able to produce working foreign policy. The Department of State, or Foggy Bottom, almost lovingly named for its location in Washington D.C., is the vast bureaucracy classically responsible for the creation and maintenance of foreign affairs. It is headed by the Secretary of State, and is housed in the Executive branch, much like the Department of Defense. Just like the D.O.D or any other bureaucracy, it is characterized by hierarchy, specialization
The increased reliance on force as a tool in American Foreign policy also works against the Department. The bureaus are responsible for work in the areas of African affairs, East Asian and Pacific affairs, European and Eurasian affairs, Near eastern affairs, south Asian affairs, and Western Hemisphere affairs, all run by assistant secretaries and deputy assistant secretaries. He worked very closely with the representatives from other states, circumventing the States Department much of the time, and answering directly to the president, setting the tone for the NSC body as a whole to become less important, and the individuals within the Council, specifically the Advisor, to be more important. Many things make up State's subculture, but the most problematic, besides their willingness to put foreign states' concerns over our own, is their elitist tendencies. Nixon and Kissinger made this system what it is today, through their famous upheaval of the State Department. After the Secretary of State, there is the Deputy Secretary of State, then six undersecretaries, each the master of his own area. " and "The NSC staff (and the NSC adviser) has become more significant over time, while the National Security Council as a decision-making body has declined in importance. The most specialized work takes place at the bureau level. And secondly, those who are chosen are always white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, always from families of wealth, and always Ivy-league educated; so the habit of elitism is already ingrained in their well-educated minds, and the way they are expected to do their job, to conform to standard practices already in place years before they were born, only strengthens that idea. These are readily prevalent in the Foreign Service, because for one, it is very difficult to become an FSO or Foreign Service officer of any kind. Our country was forced to rely not only on the State Department, but also the Treasury, the newly formed NSC, the Department of Defense, and other foreign affairs agency, toppling State's monopoly on Foreign policy. -Soviet relations, and recommending policy actions toward the other nation, specifically in the form of containment.
Common topics in this essay:
Security Council,
Foreign Service,
War II,
Anglo-Saxon Protestants,
Advisor Nixon,
Security Act,
Department Defense,
Ambassador Iran,
Security Advisor,
Wildavsky's Presidents,
foreign policy,
national security,
security council,
national security council,
foreign service,
foreign affairs,
cold war,
assistant secretaries,
foreign service officers,
growing power,
service officers,
policy world war,
communications revolution,
world war ii,
foreign policy department,
|
Acceptance Essays
