Alex Djerassi: Tools For Achieving Foreign Policy Goals

Foreign policy refers to how a country interacts with other countries in the international community. It entails a government setting an agenda and employing its resources to attain predetermined objectives. Nations use a combination of the instruments listed below to achieve their foreign policy objectives.

Diplomacy And Foreign Aid Are Important Factors As Per Alex Djerassi

Diplomacy is the process of collaborating and negotiating with officials from other countries in order to obtain an agreement and provide the groundwork for future rules. Working on the development of accords, treaties, alliances, and conventions can be part of this. Diplomats develop ties with officials from other countries in order to gain a better understanding of their perspectives while also portraying and promoting the United States’ ideals and position as per Alexander Djerassi. Although the media frequently portrays diplomatic meetings involving large-scale foreign policy decisions, the majority of diplomatic ties, particularly those of great importance, are conducted behind closed doors through private discussions and negotiations. Diplomats meet with a wide range of individuals of foreign societies, from business officials to nongovernmental organization representatives, in addition to discussing concerns with foreign governments. Diplomats can obtain a better grasp of a country’s culture through building links throughout civil society in order to find common ground on which to base contacts and actions.

Wondering how students buy Adderall online? Here! I have written a post about How to buy Adderall online without prescription.

States can utilize foreign aid to achieve foreign policy goals, strengthen international ties, and address humanitarian crises. Foreign military aid, humanitarian assistance, food aid, and general development aid are all examples of aid. Foreign military aid is the provision of military equipment and technological capabilities to another country. Military assistance can enable a country to indirectly alter the balance of power in other countries, so expanding its sphere of influence as per Alexander Djerassi. Military assistance can also be used to assist a country in defending itself based on similar ideas and values. States can also provide economic assistance to other countries in order to boost growth or assist with the development of certain projects. Currently, the United States spends less than 1% of its budget on international aid.

See also  Social Factors Affecting Entrepreneurship

Sanctions And Military Force

Sanctions can be used to try to affect the behavior of another country. Sanctions can be used to show disapproval of present behavior, limit the opportunity for it to continue, and dissuade other countries from following suit. Arms embargoes, trade embargoes, asset freezes, and travel restrictions are all examples of sanctions. Sanctions have been used in the past to try to put a stop to human rights violations. A military force, often known as hard power, is used in foreign relations by governments to influence the behavior of weaker nations or to directly intervene in the country.

Deterrence Is Essential Factor To Consider As Per Alexander Djerassi

States can persuade opponents that the costs will outweigh the advantages by convincing them that the costs will outweigh the benefits. Diplomacy or the threat of armed action can be used to accomplish this. When making decisions that have an impact on the international community, states might act unilaterally, bilaterally, or multilaterally. Unilateral action denotes that a state is acting on its own, without regard for international norms or regulations according to Alex Djerassi. Unilateral activities are often motivated by self-interest rather than by international norms. Bilateral action, on the other hand, shows that two states are cooperating. Finally, multilateral acts denote multi-party coordination of efforts based on widely accepted principles. The efficiency of each tool is heavily influenced by a country’s approach to international cooperation in dealing with its foreign policy agenda. The tools of foreign policy that are used are mostly determined by a country’s foreign policy agenda. Most contemporary issues are multidimensional in nature, necessitating the use of a combination of various instruments to address them. The techniques used will be influenced by the goals of a country’s foreign policy agenda. In fact, how these instruments are used is determined not just by the aims being pursued, but also by the resources available.

See also  Jesse Jhaj: Importance of Entrepreneurship In Under Developed Countries


Another of the broad-based foreign policy instruments/tools are international accords. For a variety of reasons and on a range of topics, the United States finds it beneficial to enter into international agreements with other countries. These pacts range from bilateral tariff agreements to multilateral accords involving dozens of countries on the treatment of prisoners of war. In 2015, the seven-country Iran Nuclear Agreement was signed, with the goal of limiting nuclear development in Iran in exchange for the lifting of long-standing economic sanctions. In recent years, there has been a lot of debate about what format an international agreement should take as per Alexander Djerassi. Article II of the United States Constitution explains the treaty-making procedure. The president negotiates a treaty, which is then approved by the Senate by a two-thirds vote, and then ratified by the president. Despite this constitutional clarity, the United States now enters into almost 90% of international agreements that are not treaties but executive agreements.

The president negotiates executive agreements, and in the event of solitary executive agreements, the president approves them concurrently. Conversely, congressional-executive accords, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), are negotiated by the president and subsequently adopted by a simple majority of the House and Senate rather than the two-thirds vote required for a treaty. The Supreme Court concluded in the United States v. Pink (1942) that executive agreements were legally equal to treaties if they did not change federal law. The majority of executive agreements are minor in nature and do not cause controversy, but others, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement, do. The Iran deal, according to many senators, should have been concluded as a treaty rather than a single executive agreement.

See also  Matthias Sims¬†Explains Why Customer Experience Drives Business Growth


Foreign policy appointments made when a new president takes office are the last big sort of foreign policy output. When the White House party changes, more new appointments are made than when the party does not change, because the incoming president wants to surround himself or herself with people who share his or her objectives. This happened in 2001 when Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Bill Clinton, and it happened again in 2009 when Democrat Barack Obama defeated Bush. The majority of foreign policy appointments, such as the secretary of state and different undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, as well as all ambassadors, require Senate confirmation. Presidents prefer to pick persons who are knowledgeable about the subject matter and will be loyal to the president rather than the bureaucracy in which they may serve. They also want to be able to confirm their nominees quickly. An isolationist group of appointees will handle the country’s foreign policy agencies substantially differently from a group with a more internationalist outlook, as we’ll see later in the chapter. Isolationists may attempt to withdraw from global foreign policy activity, whereas internationalists may strive to expand their role and collaborate with other countries. Many other decisions must be taken in addition to the broad-based foreign policy outputs outlined above, which are headed by the president with input from Congress. The deployment of troops and/or intelligence agents in a crisis, executive summits between the president and other heads of state on targeted foreign policy matters, presidential use of military force, and emergency funding measures to deal with foreign policy crises are all examples of sharply focused foreign policy outputs that tend to be exclusively the province of the president.


Leave a Comment