The course will operate on the premise that much of the power of case learning comes from small group study preparation, class discussion and interaction, and the willingness of participants to explore new ideas and learn from others' analysis and points of view. Small groups sessions, formal case discussions, reflections on theoretical and background materials, and the writing assignments all attempt to underscore and intensify this perspective.

The following are required texts and readings for the course:

Glenn P. Hastedt, American Foreign Policy: Past, Present, Future 3rd ed., (Prentice-Hall, 1996)
Kul B. Rai, David F. Walsh and Paul J. Best, America in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities in Foreign Policy (Prentice-Hall, 1997)
Jeremy D. Rosner, The New Tug-of-War: Congress, the Executive Branch and National Security (Washington: Brookings, 1995)
Reader: Domestic Politics, institutions, Personality and American Foreign Policy, (selected articles, 1997)

Harvard, Kennedy School of Government Case Studies:
Mark Lilla, "The Two Oaths of Richard Helms" (C14-83-525.0)
Pew Case Program in International Affairs: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy

Frederick Donovan, "Changing the Rules: President Reagan's SDI Decision"
William E. Kline, "The Fall of Marcos"
Pamela Varley, "The U.S. And South Africa: The Sanctions Debate of 1985"

Ole R. Holsti, "The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Trade for Soviet Missiles in Cuba for American Missiles in Turkey?"
Louis L. Ortmayer, "The U.S.-Japanese FSX Fighter Agreement"
Louis L. Ortmayer and Joanna Flinn, "Hamstrung Over Haiti: Returning the Refugees"

Louis L. Ortmayer and Lorie K. Logan, "Clinton, China and MFN"
Louis L. Ortmayer, "Mission Possible: U.S. Intervention in Haiti"
Louis L. Ortmayer, "Confronting Cuba: Helms-Burton or 'Normalization'?"

Louis L. Ortmayer, "Earth Summit: George Bush at Rio"
Louis L. Ortmayer, "Through the Looking Glass: U.S.-Japan Conflict Over Luxury Autos"
Louis L. Ortmayer, "Who's at the Helm(s)? The United Nations Debt Deal"

Washington Post (National Weekly Edition)

In addition, selected readings will come from the following:

Barbara Kellerman and Ryan J. Barilleaux, The President as World Leader (NY: St. Martin's, 1991)

Eugene Wittkopf, The Domestic Sopurces of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (NY: St. Martin's, 1994)

It is strongly recommended that students consult regularly and read as extensively as possible in the major scholarly journals and periodicals focusing on American foreign policy:

Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Washington Quarterly, Orbis, World Politics, International Security, Congressional Quarterly, World Policy, Congressional Digest, The Washington Monthly, National Journal, New Republic, SAIS Review, Brookings Review, International Affairs.

Students will be expected to avail themselves of the national, foreign policy, and international news reporting of one (or more) of the primary national news dailies: (and news weeklies and broadcast news)

Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times.

The primary criteria of course evaluation will be student preparation, discussion and participation, and critical thought and analysis. The focus of the course is the case method approach to learning, a highly interactive environment which necessitates careful reading of the cases and materials, a willingness by student participants to engage the issues and explore ideas, and effort to improve critical skills. Therefore, a prominent part of the final evaluation will be constructive participation (15%--including peer evaluations) and small-group preparation. Case study discussions will take place during classes on Monday and Wednesday, with case de-briefings on the latter day, leaving Friday sessions to consideration of general and theoretical literature, and to analysis of the wider context of policy to which the cases relate.

Four types of writing assignments will be used:

(Required readings indicated in parentheses)

I. Introduction: Overview and Perspective

Aug. 25 Case: "Deadman's Curve or "What's the Case Method About?"
(Case Study Method: Sharon A. McDade, "An Introduction to the Case Study Method: Preparation, Analysis and Participation")

II. Post-World War II Setting and Political Context
A. Trends and Guidelines
B. Institutions and Issues
C. Policy in a Democratic, Pluralist, Open Society
D. Policy in a New International (Dis)Order

Aug. 27 Case: "The Two Oaths of Richard Helms" (Hastedt ch. 6 and 1; Rai: Intro; R: Schlesinger: "Back to the Womb?")

III. Presidential Preeminence in U.S. Foreign Policy
A. Presidential Interests and Stakes
B. Presidential Powers
C. Presidential Primacy
D. Presidents and Consensus? Running the Executive Branch

Sept. 1 Case: "Changing the Rules: President Reagan's SDI Decision"
(Hastedt ch. 7, pp. 374-76, 378-385); R: S. Ambrose, "The Presidency and Foreign Policy"; Tom Daschle, "The WaterÕs Edge")

IV. Bureaucratic Context and Bureaucratic Politics
A. Policy and Policy Making
B. Players, Barriers and Competition
C. Setting and Grabbing the Agenda
D. Implementing Foreign Policy

Sept. 8 Case: "The United States-Japan FSX Fighter Agreement"
(Hastedt ch. 9; R: Hermann and Preston, "Presidents and Their Advisers"; R: Snow & Brown, "Reagan, Bush, Clinton")

V. Congressional-Executive Relations
A. Implied Powers, Legislated Powers, and War Powers
B. Oversight and Micromanagement
C. Partisanship and the Conduct of Foreign Policy

Sept. 15 Case: "The Fall of Marcos"
(Hastedt, ch 8; R: Lindsay "Congress and Foreign Policy: Avenues of Influence"; Lindsay, "Congress and the Use of Force...")

VI. National Security Policy I: U.S. - Soviet Relations (The Cold War) POL 346
A. Cuban Missile Crisis .. Decision Making
B. Models of Foreign Policy Making (Rational Actor?)
C. From Containment to Wary Engagement
D. Bilateral Relations and Foreign Policy Coordination

Sept.22 Case Study: "The Cuban Missile Crisis"
(Hastedt, "Decision-Making Case Studies: CMC; and ch. 4; handouts; Rai ch. 2; Video:"The Missiles of OctoberÓ [7-9:30 p.m., Sept. 23] )

VII. The National Interest and National Securitv in a Post-Cold War World
A. Regional Conflicts and a New World Order (?)
B. Domestic Constraints on Foreign Policy
C. Constraints on the Use of Force
D. Formulating and Implementing Policy

Sept.29 Case: "Hamstrung Over Haiti: Returning The Refugees"
(Hastedt ch. 3; handouts; Rai: ch. 1; video: "Haiti: House on Fire" [7:00-8:00, Sept. 29]; R: Haass, "Military Intervention")

VIII. Foreign Policy, Public Opinion, and Interest Groups
A. Congress and Interest Groups
B. Special Interests and the National Interest
C. Strategic Policy and Electoral Pressures
D. Trade Policy or Foreign Policy?

Oct. 6 Case: "Clinton, China, and MFN"
(Hastedt ch. 5; R: Snow & Brown, "Congress and the Politics of Trade")

IX. Sources of American Foreign Policy: Reconsideration
A. American "National Style"
B. Style and Its Consequences
C. Alternative Assessments and Critique

Oct. 15 Textbooks and Critics (R: Shalom, "Sources of U.S. Foreign Policy"; Hastedt, "American National Style"; Hastedt, "Models of Policy Making")

Oct. 17 MID-TERM EXAM

X. International Economic Policy
1: Policy Making and Perspective
A. Free Trade and Protectionism
B. Special Interests, Public Agenda, and Policy
C. "Intermestic" Politics
D. Trade & Negotiation with Japan: Interdependence

Oct. 20 Case: "Through the Looking-Glass: U.S. - Japan Conflict Over Luxury Autos"
(Hastedt ch. 14; Rai ch. 5,3)

XI. Current Policy: Definition, Operationalization, Action
A. Defining Interests
B. Assessing Interests, Assessing Threats
C. Reconciling Options and Objectives
D. Analyzing Foreign Policy Decisions

Oct. 27 Case: "Who's at the Helm(s)? The U. N. Debt Deal"
(Rai ch. 6, 8; handouts)

XII. Instruments of Foreign Policy: Sanctions and South Africa
A. Determining the National Interest
B. "Constructive Engagement' vs. Complexity
C. Formulating Sanctions and Implementation
D. Policy Assessment: Goals and Consequences

Nov. 3 Case: "The U.S. And South Africa: The Sanctions Debate of 1985")
(Hastedt, ch 1; R: Ivan Eland, "Economic Sanctions as Tools of Foreign Policy")

XIII. Post-Cold War Agendas:
A. New "Friends," Old "Enemies"
B. "Normalization" or Confrontation?
C. Legislating Foreign Policy?
D. Changing Parameters of the Post-Cold War World

Nov. 10 Case: "Confronting Cuba: Helms/Burton or 'Normalization'?"
(Hastedt, ch. 12-13; handouts; Rai ch. 7)

XIV. International Economic Policy II: Foreign Assistance and Engagement
A. Assistance and Budget Battles
B. Implementing National Security Objectives
C. Congressional Feed-Back
D. "In the Pipeline," or "Lost in Transit"?

Nov. 17 Case: Rosner, "Assistance to Russia and NIS"
(Rosner - all; Hastedt ch. 14 [foreign aid]; Rai ch. 4)

XV. New Foreign Policy Agendas
A. Environmentalism
B. Population
C. Global Issues
D. Challenges to "New Thinking"

Dec. 1 Case: "Earth Summit: George Bush at Rio"
(Rai ch. 9; handouts)

XVI. New Agendas of Foreign Policy II: Intervention 
A. No More "Somalias"
B. Haiti Reprise, Bosnia Encore
C. Military Intervention: Costs/Objectives

Dec. 5 Case: "Bosnia......."
(Hastedt ch. 15; handouts)

XVII. Fitting the Pieces Together: Puzzle Solved, or Created?
Dec. 8-10:
A. "Scorecard" on Clinton's Foreign Policy
B. Agendas for the Future

A case is a narrative of an actual, or realistic, problem that typically portrays policymakers confronted with the need to make a decision. Teaching cases present information, but not analysis; your task is to supply the latter, as well as to advocate a solution. Moreover, unlike the assignments to which you are probably accustomed, and which tend to be relatively solitary exercises, we will use in-class discussion to develop a solution to the problem posed in the case.

You should find case learning an enjoyable and active experience. But unless you have used cases in other courses, you may find that you need to learn some new skills. Studying cases may seem frustrating. Like the situations faced by real lpolicymakers, information provided in the case may be ambiguous, complex, or incomplete. Generally a case has no single "correct" answer; there are only choices, some better, some worse, and all open for discussion and interpretation.

Second, class discussion of cases may appear intimidating to some of you, and working together in a group to solve a problem may be unfamiliar to many of you. Learning with cases also involves your active participation. Unlike traditional lectures, where the material presented by the professor may find its way to your notebook with little conscious intervention on your part, case discussion demands your ideas and participation. Rather than being a passive "desk potato," just observing the knowledge transmission process, cases require you to learn by doing analysis and recommending action.

The more carefully you prepare for these class sessions, the more intellectually useful, interesting, and fun you will find them (and, most likely, the better the grade you will receive for this part of the course). Preparing for in-class discussion of cases is likely to require significantly more effort than you might anticipate. One approach many students find helpful is working in small groups; while this method is recommended, bear in mind that all work handed in for study questions or the final examination must represent your work only. The preparation work you do will significantly improve your ability to participate in class discussion.

1. Read the case quickly the first time to get a sense of it. What can you learn from the title, headings, and outline? What do the introduction and conclusion reveal about the problem?

2. If this is a case requiring a decision, who is the key decision maker? What decision does she or he have to make? What are his or her objectives? What other actors are there in this case? What are their objectives?

3. Reread the case carefully, underlining, highlighting, or noting key facts. If the case is complicated, you might want to write out a chronology of key events.

4. Try to identify the key problems on a piece of paper. Then go through the case again, sorting out the relevant information for each problem. What are the resources and constraints associated with each problem?

5. What are the possible courses of action for the decision maker? Endeavor to identify and rank alternative policies. What are the likely short and long term consequences of the policies that you have identified?

6. Use the study questions as a guide. Develop answers to them, preferably in writing. Remember that often there is no single right or wrong answer to a question.

**Over the course of the semester, you must hand in your answers to the study questions (no more than one page, typed for each set) four times: twice before the mid-term, and two times after. You may select which study questions you hand in toward your participation grade.

At the heart of learning from cases is the discussion in class. This is a collective exercise. You might think of the class as a team of professional colleagues, perhaps a group of government ministers of a departmental working group, that has been asked to work together on a problem.

1. Be prepared to present your ideas forcefully, and to support them with as much care and persuasion as you can. At the same time, be equally prepared to listen to the comments of your classmates, and to treat others with respect. This is not shock radio; name calling and other incivilities are not acceptable. Keep an open mind, and do not hesitate to incorporate the ideas of other students, or to change your mind.

2. Do not wait too long to get involved in the discussion. The longer you wait to participate, the harder it is likely to seem to become involved. I may call on you at any time, or ask you to play the role of a particular actor in the case.

3. If you want to raise an issue that is completely different from the one the class is discussing, consider waiting until the class is ready to move to another issue. Alternatively, if you feel that you need to interject your point (particularly if you feel the class is moving off onto a tangent) try to do so by linking your comments to those of others.

4. Try to be alert to ways to keep the class discussion moving toward a solution to the case. Although this may take some practice, try to find opportunities to build on the comments of others.

5. Do not hesitate to admit confusion, ask for clarification, or simply be wrong. Most of us do not like to do any of these, but bear in mind that by doing so, you may help the group stay focused on the problem.

A principal writing and analysis assignment for the course will involve the selection of a current foreign policy issue by the student, ultimately designed to structure a policy recommendation to an appropriate decision maker in the American foreign policy environment. The student will analyze the issue in sequential writing projects, focusing in turn on:

The purpose of the sequential writing is to provide a context for close faculty-student interaction and directive and suggestive comments by which the student will understand the complexity of current issues and also the need for clarity and conciseness in the poilcy making process.

The assignment is done in four drafts, with further ongoing refinement encouraged. The main purpose is to guide the student during the semester through a comprehensive and ordered reasoning process preparatory to reaching an action-oriented recommendation, all done concisely in only ten to twelve pages of final product. This task requires condensing a great deal of essential information and a broad perspective into a short and carefully reasoned evaluative essay. The sequential nature of the project's four parts provides for frequent instructor-student interaction on substance and style, to promote the students' integrative and critical skills as they work to produce the final complete and polished draft, which is the final one to be graded.

A. The sequence of the assignment follows these lines. The student first works on an empirical analysis of the issue in about three pages, emphasizing the nature, significance, causes, effects, dynamics, and trends of the current situation. Historical coverage itself must be kept quite limited, but knowledge of the historical dimensions of the matter must be incorporated as background to evaluation throughout the entire essay. The first section is due several weeks after topic selection and is returned with comments by the instructor. The most common observations tend to direct the students to use a more concise and smoother style, to favor interpretive trend analysis over details and descriptive chronology, to deepen and broaden the analysis, and to improve on the title in view of the ultimate policy purpose and target. Sources should be properly and fully cited from the start, preferably in endnotes because of the deliberate space strictures in the assignment.

B. The second three-page draft considers the normative aspects and is due about three weeks after the empirical draft. The emphasis here is on eliciting the student's assessment of the scope of ethical concerns and multiple group interests at stake, through perception of the terms of the ongoing debate on the issues inherent in the topic. A useful organization is often a pro-con format that frames the issues, the interest and value positions, or the alternatives briefly and clearly. Observations about the normative draft usually request the student to frame the issues and U. S. interests more completely and explicitly and to clarify the nations goals (as a lead-in to the third section).

C. The third draft is a three-page policy analysis. The student uses the draft to refine ideas in the empirical and normative stages in order to present the most realistic, specific, and applicable action plans possible, directed to the designated actor named from the start in the form of possible options. Students usually find this culmination of the paper to be the most challenging, because it places them vicariously in the position of a responsible policymaker faced with limited options, limited resources, and limited control over the situation. The policy section also invites conjectural thinking. The instructor evaluates this action plan according to the degree to which the recommendations are spelled out clearly and seem to be broadly feasible, informed by what is actually occurring in the real-world situation, and in line with the flow and conclusions of the previous two sections. The most common suggestions at this point call for more explicitness in defining the preferred outcome and in elaboration of steps toward achieving it.

D. Near the semester's end, the final ten-to-twelve-page paper is due, to be given a final grade. It is to be a blended synthesis of the earlier revisions, with transitions smoothly providing, in order, the logical sequence of

Topic: September 19
Draft A: September 26
Draft B: November 7
Draft C: November 24
Final Policy Brief December 10