Also, briefly use biblical
and extra-biblical to inform your own reasoning on whether CWV privileges any particular
decision-making model or diplomatic approach.
Essay: Decision-Making Models and Diplomatic Approaches Assignment Instructions
In Module 5: Week 5 our focus turns to foreign policy decision making models and approaches to diplomacy. With respect to decision making models, the author of our text notes the following: “In an effort to make sense out of the complicated business of making decisions, models have been developed to help explain, describe, predict and evaluate how U.S. foreign policy is made. Models are analytical tools that are designed to serve as simplified representations of reality.” With respect to diplomatic approaches, our author points out that “diplomacy remains the classic policy instrument and the one best suited to producing lasting and workable solutions to foreign policy problems.” As students of American foreign policy, it is essential to have a firm understanding of decision making models as well as the wide array of approaches to diplomacy.
Considering the readings from Chapters 9 & 10 and video presentations, briefly describe each policymaking model (5 total) in Chapter 9, with relevant examples, and conclude by mentioning their specific advantages and risks. Also, briefly describe each approach to diplomacy in Chapter 10 (6 total to include the political use of force) with relevant examples.) Also, briefly use biblical and extra-biblical to inform your own reasoning on whether a CWV privileges any particular decision making model or diplomatic approach.
· Write a quality 1,250–1,500-word research paper demonstrating your understanding of the aforementioned decision-making models and diplomatic approaches (see above).
· Organizational recommendation: Make two substantive paragraphs for each model and diplomatic approach, the first describing it and the second discussing its advantages and disadvantages/risks.
· The paper must be in current Turabian style. The paper must include a title page and reference page also in current Turabian format.
· You must include citations to a sufficient number of appropriate scholarly sources to fully support your assertions and conclusions. Each paper must contain at least 5-scholarly sources original to this paper and not including the course textbook
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
Criteria Ratings Points
40 to >35.0 pts
Essay displays clear content mastery while evaluating each of the assignment prompts.
35 to >31.0 pts
Essay addresses each of the assignment prompts, yet with modest evidence of subject mastery of relevant knowledge.
31 to >0.0 pts
Essay loosely relates to or neglects one or more of the assigned prompts and does not effectively develop the discussion beyond minimal or superficial understanding of the topic.
Does not provide evidence of subject mastery.
Organization and Analysis
40 to >35.0 pts
The argument and conclusion of the essay are coherently written and organized. Essay is critical in its approach to each of the assignment prompts, demonstrating coherent reasoning, analytical insight, and relevant research.
35 to >31.0 pts
The argument and conclusion of the essay are relatively clear, yet partially obscured by poor organization. Essay is satisfactory but does not provide strong evidence of coherent reasoning or critical analysis.
31 to >0.0 pts
The argument and conclusion of the essay are disrupted by poor organization. Essay demonstrates a clear bias or does not provide a clearly discernable position on the issue.
Does not display evidence of individual thought or topical research.
Evidence and Support
25 to >22.0 pts
Essay provides evidence that is sufficiently detailed, defined, or explained, and highly relevant to the assignment prompts.
22 to >19.0 pts
Essay contains satisfactory evidence yet is insufficiently detailed, defined, or explained, and/or questionably relevant to the assignment prompts
19 to >0.0 pts
Evidence in the essay is insufficiently detailed, defined, or explained, and is marginally relevant to the assignment prompts if at all.
Contributions to the discussion are nominal.
Essay Grading Rubric | PPOG540_D01_202140
Criteria Ratings Points
Grammar and Spelling
23 to >19.0 pts
Fewer than 2 errors in grammar or spelling.
19 to >16.0 pts
Fewer than 5 errors in grammar or spelling.
16 to >0.0 pts
Fewer than 8 errors in grammar or spelling.
Essay is disorganized, poorly written, and contains greater than 8 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content.
22 to >19.0 pts
Minimal errors (1-2) noted in Turabian formatting.
19 to >16.0 pts
Few errors (3-4) noted in Turabian formatting and/or word count requirements.
16 to >0.0 pts
Numerous errors (5+) noted in Turabian formatting and/or word count requirements.
Notable absences in required Turabian formatting elements such as: Title page, running head font type and size, line spacing, and headings. Word count for each post is not within 20% of the requirement. No outside references are provided.
Total Points: 150
Essay Grading Rubric | PPOG540_D01_202140
1. Watch: Policy Making Models & Diplomacy
Welcome to Module 5, policymaking models and diplomacy. This week, the discussion turns to foreign policy decision-making and diplomacy as tools of statecraft. Both are critical subjects for successful US foreign policy. Any introductory course on US foreign policy entails a discussion of decision-making frameworks. In an age of Social and Behavioral Science, HR, such framework serve as the basis of organizational analysis. One of the great contributions on the framework issue is Graham Allison's landmark study. Essence of decision is account of decision-making during the Cuban Missile Crisis, students will encounter three main decision-making frameworks, along with T2 umbrella theories about the scope of involvement in who actually decides policy.
The rational actor model, as its name suggests, presumes that policy decisions are ultimately based on logical reasons, more than ones driven by domestic politics. Personal idiosyncrasy, bureaucratic infighting, or a dominant clique. By contrast, the bureaucratic model assumes that while rational factors are considered, they were filtered through the lens of different even competing institutions involved with the foreign policy decision-making process. Finally, the small group model suggests that after all the data is gathered, it is assessed by a small, trusted circle, a presidential adviser, who then decide its policy content. Here too, it’s a presumption in favor of rationality, even if the representative group deciding is small. Not surprisingly, Students of the decision-making process noticed another interpreted fault line, namely that between elitist and pluralist theory as potentially better descriptors of the process. Elite theory is less a comment on the quality and substance of analysis than on the representative character of the decision-making process. Implicitly assuming as it does, that only a few key players are ultimately involved in making and implementing foreign policy. Pluralism assumes the opposite. Namely that many voices, sources of expertise, are represented in the decision-making process. Even if only a few are recognized more publicly. Both of these concepts indicated critical difference. Since they suggest that more than rationality, it is a legitimate concern to know whether policy making represents the broader interests of the American people. Or just some elite clique speaking on behalf of narrow commercial, ideological, religious, or other interests reflected in US domestic politics.
The important thing in thinking through these models and concepts is that like many theories and international relations, I only cognitive maps that help us approximate, simplify, if not over-simplify, how US foreign policy decision-making occurs. This week is also a great opportunity to explore America's diplomatic arsenal of options. Students will encounter different ways our diplomats engage with the world and its many challenges. One is through bilateral relations with friends, allies, and sometimes enemies. Another is through multilateral approaches to cooperation that emphasized the importance of acting in concert with other states to achieve American interests. Summit and conference diplomacy indicate times when two or more states gather in a single location to focus on a particular set of problems or issues in which the rules of discussion and range of policy options have been agreed to by the participants beforehand. Us diplomacy at the UN is different than this, but its main challenge is to use the global form to achieve its national interests while reducing its risks of over commitment may somehow diminish its sovereignty and diplomatic range of options. As you've likely heard already, there is discussion these days about hard and soft power as it relates to the issue of diplomacy. Classic hard power as much about the US being willing to threaten use of its political, economic, and military resources in the service of achieving US foreign policy objectives. As Mohsen publicly argued by Joseph Nye of Harvard's Kennedy School. Soft power, by contrast, is about attracting us friends and allies to the cause of issues like human rights, environment, global public health, humanitarian assistance and development. In effect, focusing on non-coercive tools and diplomacy. When serious question here, as mentioned in a previous session, is whether in reality soft power can play a role in US foreign policy, independent of hard power, or whether it requires a bedrock of hard power as a basis for its success. You will decide. Finally, note the over the horizon issues in each chapter and have a great week.
Next on GPS, the Sino-US summit. But are these two nations destined for war? That's one of my next guesses will tell you a very distinguished scholar, don't mess up. For dinner at Merrill logo on Thursday night, President Trump and Chinese President Xi were offered a choice of New York steak or Dover. So, we don't know what Donald Trump ordered to eat, but we do know that before dinner he ordered the strike against Syria. Without the strike the summit between the leaders of the two largest economies in the world would've been the top headline. Instead, it got buried. So, what did we miss? And what does the future hold for relations between the United States and China? Joining me now are Elizabeth, economy Director for Asian Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. And grandma Allison is director of the bell for a center at Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of an important forthcoming book, destined for War. Can America and China escape? Thucydides trap? Graeme, you have to begin, begin by very quickly explaining what the Thucydides trap is and why you think that there is a sort of better than even chance that the United States and China could go to war. Or Thucydides trap, as you know, is the deadly dynamic that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power. Think about what was happening in Europe a 100 years ago.
This week, when Germany's rise created a interaction with Britain that ended in a war or thinking, think about the relationship between China and the US today. Now, Thucydides wrote about Ancient Greece, but historically, when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, alarm bell should still extreme danger here. And you point out that historically you've counted there and what 18 cases. And in globalization, in the last 500 years, I've been able to identify 16 cases. And in 12 of the cases, like Britain and Germany, the outcome was war. In four cases the outcome was not war. So when Thucydides, he said war was inevitable, that was hyperbole. But while destiny deals with the hands, players have to play the chords. Recognizing that the severe structural stress that would therefore lead businesses usual to produce history as usual. But it's not, it's not inevitable. So it's not inevitable because of people and personal diplomacy. Who are these two people, and did they get on from what you could tell? So I think expectations were certainly modest for the summit and much more modest than trying to address the Thucydides trap, I have to say. But actually, I think that the expectations were largely met and it was a positive first step in US-China relationship. I think President Xi and President Trump began to establish a personal relationship. Some extent, I think they're kindred spirits in ways that are somewhat counter-intuitive. So I think there's a deal or tent.
Well, I think both of them were children, a privileged, I think they both tend to identify political politics in terms of friends and enemies and relatively aggressively go after those enemies. And both of them sought a political base by going around the liberal political elite and stoking nationalism and identifying issues that were important to the broader masses. And so I think that there's probably a deal of the deal of healthy understanding and respect that perhaps the two sort of engendered from this meeting. I assume gram, the one thing that Trump was not able to get from she was a was some kind of an okay that a strike like this, like the Syrian strike would be okay against North Korea, China's ally. And certainly, the timing of the bombing, Syria underlines the threat that promise me that he's prepared to strike North Korea unless she can find some way to cause North Korea to stop acquiring the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead against the US. But she is terrified by that idea, as are most of the neighbors like South Korean or Japanese, or even analysts like us. Because if we were to strike North Korea, Kim Jong-un just going to sit there. No, it's most likely the strike South Korea, perhaps triggering a second Korean War. And you and I, at least these historians remember, the first cool Korean wouldn't turn out very well for either party and certainly not for the US. So no, probably no agreement. Agree to disagree on North Korea, on trade, which was meant to be the one that Trump was going to have these tough negotiations.
What do you think happened? So I think what's important is in part that the US did set the agenda. So the main issues that were discussed with the two that are less important to the White House, namely North Korea, where right, we didn't get a major agreement. And I at least hope for some assessment that maybe we've move forward on contingency planning or something a little bit more than what we seem to get, which was basically nothing. But I think on the trade front, the two sides agreed that we would establish this 100-day study that each side would undertake for how we might be able to begin to improve the trade relationship. And frankly, leading up to the summit, the one area that Chinese analysts and foreign policy officials were discussing as the one where they could see some Chinese movement was on the trade front. So I think there's some optimism perhaps that we're going to get some progress on this issue. Alright, this is television, your distinguished scholar, but we have 30 seconds. What grade would you give the summit? I mean, how did it go? You'd have to get an incomplete since we don't know all the elements, but I would give it a B plus, I think that the two sort of alpha males are beginning to assess each other and know nothing bad happened. And prop, showed he can manage a show, which of course he can, with dignity. And actually, I think caved she the thing that he wanted most vivid images of respect for China and respect for himself as a great leader. That's right. Ivanka Trump gets, gets an a for getting her daughter discussing sign in Mandarin. That's going to be viral in China for sure. Next on GPS, saber-rattling between.
I think like so many things in American history, you start with Ben Franklin. He was core to establishing really the image of America in the world. And it was our first accredited diplomat and was the only man present at the four major turning points in the early republic. The Declaration of Independence, constitution, the treaty that created an alliance with France during the Revolutionary War. And then the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War with Great Britain. So it's just a pivotal, pivotal member. And he started in 754 in London as a representative of the, of Pennsylvania, perfectly loyal subject of the king, and evolved through that next period of years into America's leading diplomat and obviously a proponent of independence. And so he came back home for a bit and then it was sent back over to Europe now into France where he visited twice before with probably the most important diplomatic mission ever given an American diplomat. Because absent some external support in a significant way, an overt way and the end from France, America would just never most likely have, have won its independence as job. In going over there was to again, support from France, both financial and if possible, military. And the disadvantage faced. Obviously, it was France was a royalty. But the French had an innate suspicion of this new system of government, this revolution in human affairs that America represented. So, Franklin went over and his first major victory was actually and just capturing the French imagination and he became the most popular sort of the rockstar the times throughout France where he got his picture on tea cups and establishes trends and clothing. And, and it was this combination of this image that he created plus the real realistic power politics that he offered the French in terms of countering Great Britain at the time and weakening their great rival across the English Channel. So he was there for a couple of years there. And the French actually covertly had money going to, to the Americans. But it wasn't until a military victory at Saratoga that, that the French were willing for the first time not actually overtly negotiate and sine formula agreements with the Americans. Which I think very early on like so many patterns in American history, this establishes this relationship, I think, between diplomacy and the other enabling circumstances that, that that Go, go in concert with our diplomatic efforts, whether it's economic or military information and it's all part of it. A range of instruments of power that have to be orchestrated. And often that's role of, of diplomacy as it was, as it was with Franklin. So this, these treaties that are signed are absolutely pivotal and lead then to a quieter, more covert, but very significant amount of support by Spain, which was again allied with, with France, are associated with France and equally willing to undercut the British in this bin. Politics of Europe. Europe at the time, the support of France is pretty well-known. Lafayette and the fleet that closed off Yorktown and that kind of thing. But the Spanish support is much less known. And that was kind of an indirect effect of Franklin's work in, in Paris. So, so that created this, this pivotal change and the materials circumstance of the revolution and set the stage then for his next major contribution, which is to be on the negotiating team that negotiated the Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War, which is, if anything even more remarkable story. He's there with negotiating team john Adams was there as a team of three and again, trying, first of all, to get the English to recognize the Americans as an independent state. And trying to kind of grow away from this entire dependence that at the time that the colonies had on France for the material support. So it's, it's kind of a triangular diplomatic game that Franklin is playing fully knowing that he's being spied on by both sides and using that knowledge to make sure that both sides know that he's treating with the other. And that way gaining leverage on H is triangular diplomacy of a really classic type back in seventh in the early 780, which was Indian successful. The other, the other interesting thing and again, a kind of a pattern that accompanies diplomacy through the ages of the secretary for the delegation again in Bancroft, was in the pay of the English and everything that Franklin and John Adams and those guys said Allah correspondents ahead back with a, with the back with the State Department. All of that was going straight to London. And he was also, by the way, speculating in the markets over there based on the information he was he was getting. So just hugely complex situation. And again, it took someone a Franklin's, I think has personality is ability again to project an image two. To actually see to the core of the
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
Need this assignment?
Order here and claim 25% off
Discount code SAVE25