Lesson Report:
## Lesson Report
**Title:** US Foreign Policy Tools: Mechanisms, Limitations, and Application to Human Rights Crises
**Synopsis:** This lesson reviewed the primary tools available to US foreign policymakers (diplomacy, sanctions, foreign aid, trade policy, military intervention) when responding to global issues, particularly human rights crises. The class discussed the inherent limitations and challenges of each tool, including selectivity, effectiveness, and respect for sovereignty, before beginning a workshop simulating a National Security Council response to a crisis in a hypothetical allied nation engaging in human rights violations.
**Attendance:**
* No specific students were mentioned as absent in the transcript. (Note: The transcript mentions “like four people here” physically and one joining remotely).
**Topics Covered:**
1. **Introduction and Lesson Plan Overview**
* Objective: Examine the US policy decision-making process in response to global challenges, focusing on available tools and their limitations.
* Agenda:
* Review US foreign policy tools.
* Workshop: Simulate a policy response to a global crisis (human rights violations in an allied country).
2. **Recap of Previous Lesson (Climate Change Policy)**
* Reviewed Monday’s discussion on climate change as a transnational issue and the controversies in US foreign policy decision-making.
* Highlighted the US “flip-flopping” on climate policy despite international pressure and moral arguments for action.
* Revisited the reasons for policy inconsistency:
* Inherent tensions between the Presidency and Congress.
* Difficulty in achieving cooperation between branches.
* Congressional actions limiting the President’s ability to ratify international treaties, forcing reliance on less durable executive agreements.
* Acknowledged student arguments placing blame on the President but emphasized Congress’s role in creating the legislative environment that leads to this dynamic.
3. **Lecture & Discussion: Foreign Policy Tools**
* Transitioned to focus on specific tools available for responding to international crises, using a hypothetical scenario of human rights violations in a US ally.
* **Tool 1: Diplomacy**
* Definition: Communication and negotiation to resolve issues in a non-hostile manner.
* Examples: Formal negotiations, public condemnations (e.g., US condemning Myanmar’s treatment of Rohingyas).
* Limitations (discussed with class):
* Time-consuming nature.
* Relies on “soft power” and influence, which may be insufficient.
* Condemnations lack enforcement power (“just words”).
* **Tool 2: Sanctions**
* Definition: Economic and political penalties used when diplomacy fails.
* Types:
* *Targeted:* Against specific individuals (e.g., post-Magnitsky Act sanctions on Russian officials).
* *Sectoral:* Against specific economic sectors (e.g., targeting Russia’s energy sector like Gazprom).
* *Broad:* Targeting the entire economy (e.g., current sanctions against Russia).
* Limitations (discussed with class):
* Difficult to monitor and enforce (circumvention via intermediaries).
* Potential for economic “blowback” affecting the US or its allies (e.g., European energy dependence on Russia).
* Often harm average citizens more than the targeted regime elite (e.g., Cuba embargo, effects on average Russians).
* Effectiveness questioned if the target economy adapts or the burden falls disproportionately on allies or unintended populations.
* **Tool 3: Foreign Aid**
* Definition: Providing humanitarian or material assistance (e.g., via USAID).
* Application:
* *Punitive (“Stick”):* Using aid conditionality – threatening withdrawal if behavior doesn’t change (e.g., potentially cutting aid to Myanmar over Rohingya persecution).
* *Supportive (“Carrot”):* Direct support to desirable elements within a society (e.g., funding pro-democracy civil society organizations, independent media).
* (Mentioned Russian equivalent phrase: “Gingerbread and the whip”).
* **Tool 4: Trade Policy**
* Definition: Leveraging the size and importance of the US market.
* Mechanisms:
* *Import restrictions/Tariffs:* Limiting or taxing access to the US market.
* *Trade preferences:* Using existing trade agreements and their conditionality clauses as leverage.
* **Tool 5: Military Intervention**
* Definition: Using military force to address severe issues like mass atrocities.
* Examples:
* *Legally sanctioned:* First Iraq War (1990s) following UN approval.
* *Controversial:* Afghanistan, Second Iraq War, Libya intervention.
* Justification: Often framed as necessary to stop mass atrocities by “bad guys”.
* Limitations (discussed with class):
* Negative “optics” (seen as US intrusion/heavy-handedness).
* High human cost (US military and local populations).
* Potential to worsen the human rights situation (“fighting fire with fire”).
* High potential for perceived or real mixed/ulterior motives (e.g., oil, geopolitical gain).
4. **Lecture & Activity: Cross-Cutting Challenges and Limitations**
* Introduced three overarching challenges affecting the use of these tools:
* Selectivity and Hypocrisy
* Effectiveness
* Respect for Sovereignty
* **Activity:** Students took 3-5 minutes to consider how these challenges manifest in the discussed tools and limit their effectiveness.
* **Discussion:**
* *Effectiveness (linked with Selectivity/Hypocrisy):* Focused on sanctions, reiterating points about blowback, difficulty targeting elites vs. citizens, and the argument that sanctions may not achieve stated goals if the target adapts or the burden falls elsewhere.
* *Respect for Sovereignty:*
* Military intervention seen as the most blatant violation.
* Sanctions, aid conditionality, and trade pressure are also criticized as infringing on a nation’s right to self-determination (forcing internal changes from outside). This is a common counter-argument from targeted regimes (e.g., Russia, China, North Korea).
5. **Workshop Introduction: National Security Council (NSC) Simulation**
* **Role-Play Setup:** Students designated as the NSC, tasked with advising the President.
* **Scenario:** A long-standing, authoritarian US ally (important for regional stability and counter-terrorism) is violently suppressing peaceful pro-democracy protests. International reports detail unlawful arrests, injuries, and deaths. US-supplied military aid/equipment is reportedly being used against protesters. The US faces mounting international and domestic pressure (media, public, Congress, NGOs) to act or change its policy of support.
* **Objective:** Develop a recommended course of action for the President, acknowledging necessary compromises and trade-offs.
* **Country Naming:** Students chose “Sri Lanka” for the hypothetical nation (instructor noted it’s semi-fictional for the exercise).
* **Clarification:** Instructor emphasized the US military relationship and the use of US aid/weapons against protesters as key scenario details.
6. **Workshop Activity Part 1: Identifying US Strategic Interests**
* Students discussed (including one remote student via shared laptop) reasons why the US retains strategic interests in maintaining a good relationship with “Sri Lanka” *during* the crisis.
* **Identified Interests:**
* *Economic/Trade:* Sri Lanka’s strategic location for trade routes (Indian Ocean, linking Middle East, SE Asia, East Asia).
* *Regional Stability:* US role as a potential balancing power between India and China; preventing the situation from deteriorating further (e.g., takeover by worse actors, increased regional instability). Counter-terrorism cooperation remains important.
7. **Workshop Activity Part 2: Identifying Challenged US Values**
* Students discussed which core US values are challenged by the situation in “Sri Lanka” and continued US support.
* **Identified Challenges:**
* *Democracy:* Supporting an authoritarian regime acting anti-democratically.
* *Human Rights:* Complicity through providing aid/weapons used for violations.
* *Rule of Law (added by instructor):* Supporting a regime where authorities commit violence with impunity, contradicting the principle of equal application of law.
8. **Conclusion and Preview for Next Class**
* The next session (Monday) will continue the NSC simulation.
* Focus will be on:
* Identifying the risks the US faces by continuing its current policy towards “Sri Lanka”.
* Developing specific policy recommendations using the discussed foreign policy tools to navigate the situation.
**Actionable Items:**
* **For Next Class Preparation:**
* Students should be prepared to discuss the potential risks (political, reputational, strategic) to the US if it continues supporting the “Sri Lankan” government under the current circumstances.
* Students should be ready to brainstorm and evaluate potential policy options using the reviewed tools (diplomacy, sanctions, aid adjustments, trade measures, military options/restraint) for the NSC simulation.
* **Instructor Follow-Up (Minor):**
* Verify the accuracy/commonality of the Russian phrase “Gingerbread and the whip” as an equivalent to “carrot and stick”.
* Confirm the technical setup for remote student participation (Hamdam via shared laptop) was effective for group discussion.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
No homework was assigned during this lesson. The professor reviewed foreign policy tools and initiated an in-class simulation activity concerning a human rights crisis, stating at the end, “during our Monday class, we’re going to continue to talk about the risks… And then we’re going to work on creating a policy,” indicating the activity will resume in the next session without requiring prior student preparation.