The Role Of Lobbyists In American Foreign Policy

The topic of this dissertation is “The Role of Lobbyists in American ForeignPolicy: Israel and South Korea”. This study briefly summarizes the most populartheories of governmental decision making, how issues make it to the national agenda,the role of the media, public policy development, and examines the role of thelobbyist in the decisions made by the American government, particularly lobbyistsrepresenting the interests of foreign government allies. Two case studies are used, thatof Israel and South Korea, to illustrate the actors and the methods they use to promotethe interests of these two global players as they attempt to work with and even swayCongress to act in the interest of each of the two nation states: Israel and SouthKorea. Furthermore, the research illustrates how international lobbying can be seen asasking American Congresspersons to put the interests of other countries before thoseof the USA itself. This is because this spending is given to these other countries overdomestic programs of more direct benefit to their American constituents. Thedissertation is divided into five chapters:Chapter I: Introduction;Chapter II: Theoretical Framework: Organized Process Model;Chapter III: Organizational Level: From the Revolving Door LobbyistsActions to the American Foreign Policies Outcomes;Chapter IV: Case Study of USA and Israel relations;Chapter V: Case Study of USA and ROK relations;Conclusion;Bibliography and Appendix.Chapter I is the Introduction, where the dissertation’s main research questions,argument, case selection, significance of study, methodology and structure of thedissertation thesis are posed.This research focuses on how issues rise to the national agenda, and how lobbyinghelps make this happen. It focuses on the impact of lobbying, where the domesticaffairs of the USA are impacted by a possible spillover effect in which domesticorganizations concerned about international issues have given leverage to Israel andROK to attain their own interests from Congress including military support,economical support, regional security and even supremacy. Two central questions in this dissertation were generated:(1) how does the privatization of diplomacy in theUSA (lobbying) affect the American Congress’ foreign policy decision makingprocess?(2) Under what conditions have Israel’s and ROK’s lobbying actions towardsthe USA had an effective international outcome and how has it affected the nationalinterests of the USA? By using the lobby as a tool of political promotion, does Israeland ROK maximize their interest at the expense of the USA’s political andgovernmental system? If so, what are some consequences to both the domestic and theinternational affairs of the USA in the last decade? To answer these questions Iexplored and applied the “Organizational Process Model Theory”.Scholars in the field of international relations cannot give a clear explanationof why Israel does not have a Free Trade Agreement with the USA or why ROK, withone of the largest global industrial parks of electronics, cars, and semiconductors, hasminor trading positions. None of the liberal theories can explain this discrepancy;where nation-states that are part of a strong political coalition do not necessarily havestrong economic trading relations. Hence, in the USA and in many other countries,neither the central nor any other level of government controls the production, althoughthey do prevent monopolies and insure business practices are honest and legal. Thesecountries allow the markets to dictate the level of trade, although they do assistcountries which want to increase exports abroad. Each company decides what theywill invest in their own production, what they will make, and with whom they will dointernational business, although financial credits may be offered by the government.By accepting lobbying as a tool for political maneuvering, I argue that theprivatization of diplomacy divests the role of the USA foreign policy decision makingprocess because, instead of focusing on a national-level maximization on interest, theparties involved are engaged in “satisficing” the decision reach of their organization;therefore, in actuality, it makes the United States a hostage of strong organizationcapabilities that infiltrate inside the American federal government and influences aparticular goal affecting its foreign policy directions as well as the internationalstructure as a whole. It becomes na ve to believe that the US government operatesalone in making decisions. The lobbyist has influence on the foreign policy decisionmaking process because politicians from the USA comprehend that the decision tohave either unilateral or multilateral foreign policies depends who is controllingCongress and the White House. When the Republican Party is in control of bothCongress and the White House, there is a political tendency to have the kind of unilateral decision making that occurred under the Bush Administration. On the otherhand, when the Republican Party and the Democratic Party either share control of thetwo parts of Congress (the House of Representatives or the Senate) and/or the WhiteHouse, then there is a political tendency to have multilateral decisions, which haverepresented the last years of Obama Administration. In fact most recently, theRepublican dominated Congress has been openly rebellious and have done much toderail the diplomatic efforts of the President as his administration attempts tonegotiate a nuclear proliferation/future peace treaty with Iran, and to distance theAmerican government somewhat from Israel while still considering Israel animportant ally.By accommodating the lobby of Israel and ROK (which are empirical casestudies of this dissertation), all nation-states involved can gain more prominence inthe region that they maneuver. The USA grants both Israel and ROK the political andmonetary support to run domestic affairs and Israel and ROK gain a partner in theUSA that assures friendly foreign policies. Since the USA has more to compromise,the USA does not maximize its optimal advantages; instead, it enables Israel andROK to have the apparatus to be more successful.This research is significant because it sheds light on the field of internationalrelations and it is acclimatized to the fast developing trends in this research area asfuture trends develop and other advances occur. Why does lobbying matter then? Thestatement above draws some initial conclusions about the importance of lobbying.Given these points, it is important to move further by understanding how the study ofthis topic on a level of analysis has been done to draw further pillars supporting therole of the lobby. Also, it is important to note that this dissertation focuses on andemphasizes the organizational level of the government, which at its core argumentaffirms that a decision in a nation-state is leveraged based on the interactions of itspolitical and non-political organizations.In order to gain a better understanding of the role of the lobbyist in Americanforeign policies, this dissertation utilizes two cases as examples to illustrate and studythe actions of Israel and ROK, and to demonstrate that the role of lobby affects andshapes the direction of foreign strategies and emphasizes that both nation-statesdistinctively employ lobbyists in the USA as a tool to further their own foreigngovernment’s priorities. The research design of the thesis is greatly based on qualitative methods, withan emphasis on observational modes including the use of historical information toevaluate the consequences to the field of international relations.In the Lobbyists and Foreign Policy Literature Review, the scholars’ majorarguments were reviewed. This provides a better understanding of how, from adomestic policy sphere, beginning within a nation-state undetectably promulgatesevents which in turn result in the amending of different foreign policy strategiesamong states within a large cluster, which in turn modifies the field of internationalrelations.Chapter II provides a fundamental analysis of the core assumptions ofAmerican foreign policy formation and the theoretical framework for anorganizational process model, as well as clarifying the cause and effect mechanismsemployed when lobbying, by revealing and testing the thesis core argument.When pursuing a better understanding or analysis of foreign policy decisionmaking, it is important to emphasize that international relations’ theories and publicpolicies merge together, generating a bond between domestic politics andinternational politics. Foreign policies are the legitimate outcome that appropriatelyimpacts the global order and its stability; therefore there are ranges of conceptsincluding the reason for conflicts, peace promotion, trade improvement, anddiplomatic actions. Foreign policy decision making involves mitigating the conflictsbetween preferences of individuals, groups, and coalitions, while the interactionamong any particular group is an essential apparatus to advocate a purpose.I hold to the view point that, rather than following a traditional overview of thebalancing and holding of power, as well as hardcore realist ideas, internationalrelations needs to shift towards other capacities by possessing better interpretationsabout the world. As a substitute of simple Cold War ideologies, the role of lobby goesfurther beyond this state, owing to the fact that cooperation is crucial to sustaining theUnited States predominance. Besides, it is critical because it offers Israel and ROKthe possibility of advocating and achieving their own objectives. In addition to that, itshould be added that these are, to some extent, a counter-reaction which has placedthe USA at the heart of two long-term contests: the Oil Diplomacy in the Middle East,and the Currency War Diplomacy in the East Asia.Most theories advocate an explanation to describe America’s interest, as theUnited States emerges as victorious within the contemporary world of politics. Many concepts foster the idea that America, for many years, had not seen any global dangerwhich would result in the crash of its industry and jeopardize its own economy; on theother hand, this scenario has changed as new political and non-political players appearonto the global stage, a scenario striving for ideological restructuring and betterpolitical policies. The description of this mechanism is obscure because most theoriescrafted look at least one set of criteria and exclude others.The Organizational Process Model Theory begins with the statement that thefield of international relations has evolved, generating a more diplomatic dynamicamong nation-states over the years. Consequently, politics among nation-statesdeveloped to share the wisdom to promote a political economic interdependence,influenced by different international players and their global organizations. Along thisanalysis, multiple political decisions simply do not fit this model of unitary rationaldecision making—centrally controlled, completely informed, with a valuemaximizing approach—because many organizations have a specific persuasive roleto play and the model of governmental behavior gives emphasizes to eachorganizational level of competence. As a matter of fact, it is useful to illuminate that,within the field of international relations, nation-states don’t usually take action bycompromising the a country’s outcome on the say-so of one lone individual (Althoughcertainly some would say that Netanyahu is trying to lead not only Israel, but theentire Republican constituency in the U.S. Congress). Without a doubt, it wouldappear that in most cases, the President of the USA, as the declared head and managerof the country, cannot obtain a resolution based only on his or her own judgmentsbecause the American Constitution requires the President and Congress to have adialogue for purpose of consulting and advising. This is a crucial part of the Americangovernment’s system of checks and balances.Chapter III synthesizes the reasons of why there is continuity in the formationof political organizations in the United States, and sheds light on the interactivemechanism between the American government and the revolving door lobbyists.Revolving door lobbyists leave political office in the federal government and return tolobby their former colleagues using their unique knowledge of the people andprocesses within the hallowed halls of the Capital. It provides a coherent investigationinto how American politics work, including the “revolving doors practice”(the hiringof former Congresspersons and/or government employees as lobbyists), how lobbyingworks, and the impact of the lobbyist’s actions on American foreign policies outcomes. I mainly address the following questions in order to facilitate theunderstanding of the role of lobbyists in American foreign policy:(a) What specificrole do the so-called ‘revolving door’ lobbyists play, to what extent and for whichissues do they become involved, and how do they justify or explain theirpolitical/lobbying actions?(b) How do these former American officials employstrategies and use actions which modify the dynamics of America’s InternationalRelations? And,(c) What consequences do the revolving door lobbyist have onAmerican foreign-policy making? How does the revolving door practice take placewithin the USA political system?The concept of the Revolving Door lobbyist reflects the practice wherein afederal level elected official, subsequent to the conclusion of his/her respective duties(their term in office is over either because s/he was not reelected, did not run again,or in a few exceedingly rare cases, may have been impeached (kicked out of office))then decides to switch from their former roles where they were lobbied to their newone where they work as lobbyists using their former relationships with theircolleagues on the hill and with other government officials to persuade these formerassociates to support a particular political action or legislative position. Please notethat the term “revolving door’ can also refer to former government officials or otheremployees such as Cabinet level positions and people who held key roles within thegovernment.In Chapter IV, this paper investigates the political and other reasons as to whythe United States’ Congress has been such a strong advocate for Israel by providingyear-round forms of foreign aid, which assures the continuing existence of the State ofIsrael. Most critical,, it is the fact that it appears most foreign aid has been advocatedby lobbyists who influence the American government to subsidize military support aswell as economic support for Israel. According to John J. Mearsheimer and StephenM. Walt, Israel receives about$3billion in direct foreign assistance each year, whichis roughly one-fifth of America’s foreign aid budget. Additionally, by receiving thismunificent fiscal aid, Israel has been able to shield itself against multiple threats in theMiddle East, assemble its own nuclear weapons, solidify the American’s interest inthe region, and improve Israel’s economic conditions.In this chapter, I carefully analyzed the lobbyist’s influence on Americanforeign policy, covering the time period from the Bush Administration through thefirst term of the Obama Administration. Clearly, the American government’s relationship with Israel shifted from applying a complex containment strategy in theMiddle East to advocating more diplomatic solutions in the region. I focus particularlyon understanding the role of the lobbyist in the context of understanding the how andwhy of American foreign policy:(a) What are the motivations behind Congress’sdecision to supply extra support for and resources to the State of Israel?(b) How havethe lobbyists been so effectively able to foster multiple legislative proposals thatreflect positively on American Middle East policies favoring Israel? Who are thelobbyists that advocate for the interests the State of Israel, what methods do theyutilize, and who do they associate with to achieve their outcomes? and,(c) Why arethe organizations involved capable of propagating sustainable political values whichfavor Israel regardless of the political party of the American President?I argue that the State of Israel is well represented by the multiple lobbyingorganizations in the USA that in essence manage to achieve a benchmark thatsatisfices compatible foreign policies of Congress and the White House, as well asmaintain Israeli security and its political position in the Middle East region. The nextsection that follows examines the history of State Formation in Israel, Israel-UnitedStates relations under the Bush Administration, Israel-United States relations underthe Obama Administration, and a strategic analysis on the related role of the lobbyist.Chapter V explains how relations between the USA and ROK have evolvedhistorically, as well as identifies who the professional lobbyists are and the companiesthey represent, how they promote and protect Israel and ROK interests, and evaluateshow their political affairs have developed over the years.The following queries, which better demonstrate the correlations betweenSouth Korean’s prosperity and the role of the lobbyist in American foreign policy,were proposed:(a) How did the South Korean economy became so competitive oversuch short period of time?(b) What are the impacts of the lobbying actions in theAmerican Congress towards the development of South Korea as a nation-state? Whydidn’t nation-states like the Philippines and Thailand obtain the same level ofcompetitiveness over the years? Who are the lobbyists that advocate the growth ofROK industry? and,(c) Why supporting the economic development of ROK became apolitical strategy of the United States, by holding a strategic political pillar inNortheast Asia?Despite the fact that the USA keeps four military bases in South Koreanterritory, this research has been primarily focused on economic cooperation, which is due to the comparatively low number of lobbied bills in American Congress in thedefense area. Thus, I argue that from a geopolitical standpoint, the United Statespromotes and sustain the development of a strong ROK in order to fulfill its interest inboth the short and the long term. The ROK’s economy became competitive becausethe United States shared a great quantity of high technology. Afterwards, the SouthKorean government’s diligent and hardworking aspiration for its nation-state enabledit to flourish using and promoting a strong capitalist model. Obviously, the AmericanCongress provides a strong asset and venue to South Korea because, by allowingKORUSFTA, the official Free Trade Agreement between both nation-states, theUnited States can improve its economy and decrease its dependency on Chinesemanufactured products, while keeping a military footprint in the region, and whereinboth nation-states are able to capitalize on and offer enhanced opportunities mutuallybenefitting each other. Although the Philippines and Thailand have strong affiliationswith the United States, both nation-states did not develop an effective government thatadvocated economical reforms from an agrarian society towards industrialization, andfurthermore do not have as strong an importance to the US military. In addition, theUnited States support is less effective in those examples, as representative lobbyistgroups did not fully strive for new bills in the American Congress. Finally, the UnitedStates has supported the economic development of ROK because ROK has thecapability to be a prominent nation-state in Northeast Asia. In this case, the UnitedStates has supported the ROK sustainable development plan because ROK is anefficient nation-state in the region which has been able to bargain, at the same level,with better diplomatic terms with China.The major outcome from the analyses in this research is introduced in theConclusion. This section offers sufficient indications that the lobbyist has a dynamicparticipation in American decision making, in determining what issues come to theforefront of the American national agenda, and how the lobbyists help shape theAmerican foreign policy decision-making, and in turn, international relations.The lobbying process as an instrument for impacting decision making in theAmerican political sphere begins when Israel and ROK advocate a particular politicalstance to address problems they face and issues of mutual concern. From that point on,it becomes vital to work with Congress to gain consensus in identifying that theproblems are urgent (and merit gaining importance on the Congressional agenda(critical for legislation to get out of the Committee so it can be voted on by the whole body) and to get its help in addressing them. Therefore, professional lobbyists andtheir companies are hired to find a solution by influencing American politicians andnegotiating on behalf of solutions utilizing the methods outlined by the lobbyist wholeads multiple political campaigns (utilizing sympathetic domestic groups in someinstances) to persuade Congress to vote and to approve new bills. During theconsideration of a bill by Congress, the different organizations involved may focus onsatisficing a decision because it meets their expectations and objectives, or wouldincrease their financial assets. In contrast, politicians may support this legislationbecause it coincides with their own view points, or if it does not directly affect theirconstituents, because the lobbyist may lead the politician to feel assured, or expect,that during election time s/he can expect reciprocal financial and other support. Thepolitician may also work with lobbyists who share their views and can even generatemedia coverage helpful in getting other members of Congress to pay favorableattention to the issue.It can be concluded that maximization at the nation-state level, in somesituations, is not a likely approach because, as lobbyists succeed, it weakens thegovernmental decision at the hosted nation-state. Besides, it is important to point outthat other ethnic lobbies such as the Japanese, the Armenian, the Turkish, the Cuban,the Hispanic and the Italian have the objective of maximizing their interests, as wellas increasing US involvement or attention in meeting their needs and necessities. Thisdissertation, however, primarily focuses on the understanding that some of thestrongest lobbies are the Pro-Israel and Pro-ROK. This is due in each case to theireconomic and geopolitical standpoints. This, either the destabilization of theIsrael/ROK political affairs, or the greater military confrontation, might also have agreat impact on the US pivotal foreign policy strategies.