Negosiasi: Strategi dan Taktik


Renny Candradewi wrote

Pendahuluan

Menurut artikel berjudul, “Strategy and Tatics of Distributive Bargaining” oleh penulis ??, mengulas lengkap situasi dan kondisi yang mendukung terciptanya bargaining distributif disertai beberapa strategi dan taktiknya. Terdapat tiga tujuan yang mendasari negosiator perlu memperoleh pengetahuan dasar tersebut; antara lain adanya situasi saling ketergantungan, semakin banyak orang menerapkan bargaining distributif, dan adanya bekal keahlian tertentu berkaitan dengan bargaining distributif[1]. Beragam karakter yang turut menyumbang terciptanya situasi bargaining distributif antara lain resistance points, target,dan setting opening[2]. Meskipun ketiga fitur di atas memainka peran masing-maisng dalam proses bargaining; target menjadi indikator outcomes dan kepuasan pelaku, tawaran pembuka (opening offers) menjadi faktor yang mempengruhi hasil negosiasi, dan resistasi poin berperan sebagai alarm posibilitas terjadinya kesepakatan minimum yang satu pihak hendaki[3]. Namun, di antara fitur yang ada, resistansi poin menjadi perihal paling penting bargaining distributif; ini merupakan faktor determinasi terjadinya bargaining pada level maksimum kapabilitas salah satu pihak. Di luar komponen bargaining distributif tersebut di atas, juga dikenal adanya alternatif yang memberikan masing-masing pihak kekuatan baik keluar dari proses negosiasi atau memperkuat usaha negosiasi mereka. alternatif umumnya berkaitan erat dengan waktu, tempat strategis dan situasi kondisi yang turut menentukan jalannya dan hasilnya negosisasi.

all contents have been moved here

SUMBER

Hall, Martin. 2007. The Essence of Diplomacy. London: Palgrave Mcmillan

Taylor & Francis. 2009. Public Diplomacy. New York : Routledge Handbook Publishing

Zartman, I William. 2009. Negotiation and Conflict Management: essays on theory and practice. London: Routledge Handbook Publishing

 


[1] Anonim, Strategy And Tactics Of Distributive Bargaining. p.28.

[2] Ibid., p.28-30.

[3] Ibid., p.30.

[4] Ibid., p.30.

[5] Ibid., p.33.

Negosiasi: Kondisi Alamiah


Kondisi Alamiah Negosiasi

Setiap kehidupan manusia sebagai makhluk sosial, masing-masing individu lahir dengan kebutuhan reguler untuk menjalin hubungan. Kebutuhan tersebut dituangkan dalam komunikasi antarindividu, kelompok maupun organisasi. Setiap manusia memiliki kondisi ilmiah untuk berpikira. Berkenaan manusia merupakan makhluk yang berpikir, maka setiap manusia sudah pasti memiliki kepentingan yang berbeda-beda. Walaupun demikian, itu tidak menutup kemungkinan adanya kepentingan yang sama untuk kemudian mereka menjalin kesepakatan guna bekerjasama. Sementara itu keberadaan kepentingan yang berbeda menempatkan mereka untuk saling berkompromi atau bernegosiasi.

Apa itu negosiasi? Sayangnya, belum ada konsesus resmi mengenai definisi negosiasi secara tepat disebabkan sepertihalnya diplomasi, negosiasi dimarginalkan dalam studi hubungan internasional utamanya oleh para pemikir realis. Namun itu tidak serta-merta mengandung pengertian kemudian negosiasi tidak memiliki peranan apapun dalam konteks hubungan internasional manapun. Sebaliknya dunia internasional semakin menggantungkan pada kekuatan diplomasi dan negosiasi.

Iklim politik internasional yang semula terlalu menekankan penyelidikannya pada high issue dengan instrumen diplomasi koersif dan agresif, kini mau tidak mau telah mengalami pergeseran kepentingan sehingga state kemudian lebih menitikberatkan pada low issue dengan pola diplomasi preventif. Oleh karena itu, praktik negosiasi semakin dikenal luas dengan mengintegrasikan low issue dan pendekatan persuasif yang efektif.

Negosiasi diyakini memiliki pengertian dan implementasi luas. Sehingga satu pendefinisasian negosiasi selalu dirasa kurang memadai. Akan tetapi, berbagai pengertian selama ini telah diakumulasikan dari berbagai studi literatur, pengalaman negosiator (negosiasi sebagai seni), media dan ilmu sosial (negosiasi sebagai suatu ilmu) dimana hakekat negosiasi menjadi salah satu objek penyelidikan (inquiry).

  1. Pengertian Negosiasi
    1. Negosiasi, bargaining, dan argumen

Beberapa terminologi dasar bersangkutan dengan negosiasi diperoleh dari literatur salah satunya mengacu pada situasi menang-menang (win-win situation) antara suatu kelompok kolektif dengan yang lain guna menjembatani konflik komplek[1] . Negosiasi juga dapat dimaksudkan sebagai proses memberi dan menerima dalam usaha mencapai kesepakatan. Salah satu pengertian diplomasi oleh Martin Hall dalam bukunya the Essence of Diplomacy mengungkap definisi negosiasi yang mana secara umum diartikan sebagai inti diplomasi dan seringkali dimiripkan diplomasi dalam konteks praktikal[2]. Selain itu ada pula yang mengungkapkan bahwa negosiasi merupakan wujud utama dari komunikasi diplomasi[3]. G.R. Berridge menekankan negosiasi sebagai upaya membangun komunikasi dalam diplomasi tanpa melibatkan kekuatan (force), propaganda bertentangan dengan hukum, melainkan negosiasi merupakan kerangka damai dari suatu instrumen diplomasi[4].

Negosiasi melibatkan situasi kondisi dasar tertentu yang menyebabkan karakter spesifiknya dapat dikenali. Dalam negosiasi terdapat dua partai atau lebih, konflik berkembang antarkeduanya dan tersedianya pilihan-pilihan meliputi didalamnya proses give-and-take[5].

Salah satu kerangka penting berpikir dalam memetakan negosiasi adalah membedakannya dengan proses bargaining dan kesepakatan (agreement). Bargaining merupakan istilah digunakan untuk mendefiniskan situasi kondisi menang kalah (win-zero game)[6]. Sedangkan kesepakatan (seterusnya disebut agreement) merupakan pernyataan baik oral maupun tertulis mengenai pertukaran perjanjian yang dikehendaki bersama berdasarkan kecocokan yang dimiliki[7].

  1. Korelasi negosiasi, bargaining dan agreement

Posisi bargaining dalam diplomasi terletak pada kedudukannya sebagai pondasi faktual pertama yang melatarbelakangi aktivitas diplomasi yang dicirikan oleh kooperatif aksidental dan konfliktual terhadap kepetusan-keputusan yang saling bergantung[8]. Biasanya keadaan alamiahnya didasari kecenderungan memiliki kemiripin kepentingan nasional.

Tujuan menyelenggarakan negosiasi secara umum dikelompokkan menjadi dua yakni mencapai kepentingan nasional. Tanpa kepentingan nasional, mustahil melakukan negosiasi. Sebagai mana kepentingan nasional, negosiasi muncul karena ada konflik yang bertikai dan dibutuhkan solusi untuk mengatasi konflik tadi. Tanpa konflik, tidak ada yang signifikan untuk dinegosiasikan. Oleh karena itu, kedua target negosiasi ini terus menerus menjadi ruang lingkup dan kemudian menjadi perpanjangan tangan dari diplomasi yang terjadi dalam konteks hubungan internasional.

Macam-macam negosiasi antara lain meliputi, mediasi negosiasi, arbitrasi, dan kompromi. Negosiasi kompromi dicapai melalui kesepakatan kedua pihak untuk mengurangi tuntutan masing-masing sampai pada level minimal, tuntutan mutual bisa diterima dan dijalankan oleh kedua pihak.

Peranan diplomasi dalam negosiasi

Dalam kutipan kamus Oxford disebutkan bahwa negosiasi merupakan kegiatan hubungan internasional yang diimplementasikan ke dalam negosiasi[9]. Aktivitas diplomasi atau pekerjaan dalam diplomasi adalah bernegosiasi.  Bagaimanapun juga diplomasi, baik publik maupun nonpublik, merupakan implementasi negosiasi yang melibatkan instrumen persuasi, dissuasi, dan imbalan. Tujuannya adalah untuk mempengaruhi keinginan aktor melalui respons psikologi tepat dan antisipatif aktor terhadap serangkaian peristiwa, gambaran, atau pesan[10].

ANALISIS

Bargaining condition menciptakan iklim transparan dan akomodatif untuk tumbuh dan kembangnya negosiasi. Penerimaan dunia internasional terhadap negosiasi menjadi semakin terbuka seketika low issue makin diminati untuk menciptakan komunikasi yang lebih inheren. Negosiasi merupakan komunikasi diplomasi yang secara partikular menggunakan instrumen soft diplomasi yakni persuasi dan mediasi guna mencapai kesepatan (agreement) dan resolusi konflik. Oleh karena itu, bolehlah diambil proposisi sementara jikalau diplomasi adalah induk dari negosiasi. Negosiasi menjadi wujud idealisme muara berbagai kepentingan semua negara yang diakomodasi oleh kebutuhan reguler untuk menjalin hubungan diplomatik yang damai.

SUMBER

Hall, Martin. 2007. The Essence of Diplomacy. London: Palgrave Mcmillan

Taylor & Francis. 2009. Public Diplomacy. New York : Routledge Handbook Publishing

Zartman, I William. 2009. Negotiation and Conflict Management: essays on theory and practice. London: Routledge Handbook Publishing

http://www.werbnetweb.princeton.edu/webwn diakses pada tanggal 9 November 2009 pukul 13.30


[1] Zartman, Negotiation and conflict managemen: Essays on theory and practice. p.106

[2] Hall, The Essence of Diplomacy. p.1-37.

[3] Stearns, Talking to Strangers. p.132.

[4] Berridge, Diplomacy. p.1.

[5] Zartman, Negotiation and conflict managemen: Essays on theory and practice. p.106

[6] Zartman, Negotiation and conflict managemen: Essays on theory and practice. p.106

[7] http://www.wirdbetweb.princeton.edu/webwn diakses pada tanggal 9 November 2009 pukul 13.30

[8] Hall, The Essence of Diplomacy. p.82.

[9] Hall, The Essence of Diplomacy. p.3.

[10] Taylor & Francis, Public Diplomacy. p.15-65.

iran nuclear crisis


Nuklir Iran dan Resolusi DK PBB

Perjalanan kasus nuklir Iran seolah makin lama makin menuai kontroversi internasional berkaitan pengembangannya yang diduga bertujuan untuk pengembangan senjata nuklir. Perkembangan nuklir Iran mendapat reaksi keras dari beberapa negara besar utamanya Amerika. Melalui DK PBB, Amerika meminta PBB bertindak aktif untuk membujuk Iran membuka isnpeksi penuh dan terlibat dalam negosiasi.

Di pihak lain, Iran bersikukuh ia semestinya memperoleh hak yang sama dengan negara lain seperti India, China, Amerika etc dalam kepemilikan dan pengembangan nuklir. Lebih jauh, melalui pidatonya di depan sidang DK PBB, presiden Iran Ahmadinejad menegaskan bahwa sebagai negara anggota NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation) Iran merasa berhak untuk mengembangkan nuklir asal untuk kepentingan damai.

Pada hakikatnya, nuklir bukan merupakan hal yang sama sekali baru bagi Iran dan dunia internasional. Pengembangan nuklir Iran sebenarnya sudah dirintis sejak tahun 1954 di Iran ketika Amerika melalui Eisenhower Plan yang mana menyumbangkan teknologi dua reaktor nuklir ke Universitas Teheran. Pengembangan tenaga nuklir kala itu dinilai sah-sah saja karena berasal dari kedekatan Syech Iran dengan Amerika. Hubungan baik ini mengalami transformasi seketika Syech Iran digulingkan oleh Revolusi Iran 1979 yang mana Ayatollah Khomeini naik sebagai pemimpin tertinggi Iran. Sikap Amerika yang semula baik-baik saja seketika berubah total dan sejak saat itu Iran selalu menjadi negara yang diwaspadai Amerika[1].

29 September lalu melalui Ban Kimoon, PBB mengungkap adanya fasilitas pengayaan uranim Iran yang melanggar resolusi dewan keamanan PBB karena Iran dinilai terlambat melaporkan kegiatan itu kepada PBB. Akan tetapi hal ini dibantah Iran melalui IAEA, Iran menginformasikan bahwa Iran sedang dalam pembuatan bahan bakar baru[2].

Menanggapi permasalan ini, DK PBB berulang kali melakukan sidang berkaitan dengan resolusi terhadap permasalahan ini. Melalui resolusi 1747 yang berisi penambahan sanksi terhadap iran karena negara tersebut dianggap tidak mematuhi resoluis nomer 1737 yang dikeluarkan pada 23 Desember 2006 lalu. Resolusi 1737 berisi kewajiban Iran untuk menghentikan upaya pengayaan uranium dalam rangka pengembangan nuklir. Sebagai reaksinya, Iran menolak resolusi tersebut dengan alasan kegiatan tersebut dilakukan untuk damai dan tidak terdapat alasan pengembangan senjata nuklir di dalamnya.

Dalam salah satu pertemuan dalam DK PBB, Amerika menuduh Iran melanggar resolusi tersebut karena memasok persenjataan ke gerilyawan Lebanon. Didukung oleh penangkapan satu kapal berisi berton-ton persenjataan asal Iran oleh Israrel dan Inggris pada 4 November, Alejandro Wolff selaku deputi dutabesar AS dalam petemuan tertutup DK PBB yang mendiskusikan pembangunan di Lebanon sejak peran 2006 antara Israel dan Lebanon, mengungkapkan bahwa penangkapan pada 4 November itu jelas merupakan manifestasi pelanggaran Iran atas resolusi PBB no 1747. Menanggapi terhadap permasalahan yang sama, DK PBB kemudian mengeluarkan resolusi nomer 1803 yang terakhir berisikan sanksi terhadap Iran

Dengan kekukuhan masing-masing, Amerika dengan sejumlah tuduhannya yang didukung oleh ratifikasi sejumlah resolusi oleh DK PBB serta Iran melalui duta besarnya di PBB, Mohammad Khazaee, yang menegaskan bahwa akitivitas nuklir Iran adalah damai dibuktikan oleh laporan terbaru Dirjen badan Energi Atom Internasional (IAEA). Iran menilai resolusi nomer 1803 DK PBB anti-Iran tidak sah[3].

Kendati Iran tetap bersikukuh dengan kepentingan nuklir yang damai sementara Amerika, Israel, Inggris, dan sekutunya gencar mengirim tekanan-tekanan melalui DK PBB baik secara sepihak dinilai bersifat politis maupun penuh intimidasi, kita tidak bisa lalu semata-mata melihal persoalan dari satu sisi. Persoalan utama terletak pada legitimasi dan kredibilitas organisasi internasional yang sepenuhnya bertanggung jawab melakukan pemantauan terhadap kegiatan nuklir Iran tersebut yakni PBB pada umumnya dan IAEA pada khususnya. Nuklir Iran hendaknya tidak diinvestigasi secara terpisah, selama ini kita melihat seakan-akan PBB bertindak sendiri tanpa laporan dari badan internasional yang sebenarnya bertanggung jawab penuh terhadap permasalahan ini, yakni IAEA.


[1] www.kompas.com diakses pada 10 December 2009, 8.14

[2] United Nations Jakarta center, www.unic-jakart.org/pembangkit_tenaga_nuklir_iran_melanggar_resolusi_pbb_tutur_ban.html diakses pada 10 Desember 2009

[3] www. Indonesia.irib.ir/index.php diakses pada 10 Desember 2009, 8.01

Cabinet Recruitement Member


THE RECRUITMENT OF CABINET MEMBER

In deciding upon a single man rather than a collective executive the founding father ensured that the American cabinet would become a subordinate advisory body to the President rather than the main organ of executive decision making. The constitution does not mention the cabinet by name at all and its existence rests purely on convention. The document merely says that The President may require the advice in writing of the principle officer in its department about their respective duties. Unlike the British cabinet, American departmental secretaries are the president’s subordinate and or not colleges with whom he has work for many years in legislatures. The concepts of responsibility do not exist; cabinet members owe their loyalty to the President individually. Moreover, being a cabinet secretary is not necessarily seen as the pinnacle of a political career as it is in the British system[1].

Appointment of the cabinet

The selection of the heads of the executive department one of the first action a President – elect takes before his inauguration, and it therefore receive great public attention as the choices give an early indication of the style and tone to fill the top posts in his government. The individual do not necessarily have to be in the same party as himself and there is no need for the appointees to have held any political posts before. Many cabinet secretaries are selected for their specialist expertise or administrative capabilities and may well have previously worked in industry, commerce or the academic world.

The qualification of cabinet recruitment is including the senate approval of cabinet appointment which is normally given after committee hearings. Some of example in which the cabinet nominees from president have not been given passed by senate approval is when president Bush suffered a severe setback when john tower became the first cabinet nominee to be rejected since the senate rejected Lewis Strauss as Eisenhower’s commerce secretary in 1959. This means that there are some limitations on presidential choice. First, many members of congress are not prepare to give up their seat and seniority in the legislature to take a temporary job in the executive branch, although president Clinton was able to persuade a number of senior members of congress to join his cabinet in 1993[2].

The use of the cabinet

Each president can use the cabinet as he likes; he can call it frequently in formal meetings, such as Dwight Eisenhower favored, or he can have only irregular meeting, work with fuzzy lines of responsibility, and deal with department heads on an individual basis as John F. Kennedy preferred. For example, there is the difference presidency is that Reagan has used his system so that the cabinet member are feel closer to him than they do to their department. And he gives them a lot of opportunity to remember that. This means president often pick their closest adviser from person familiar to them or highly recommended by those who are. Positions less close to the president such as cabinet members are mainly held by strangers. As President Reagan articulated some guidelines he used to select top governmental personal.

“My basic rule is that I want people who do not want a job in government. I want people who are already successful that they would regard a government job as a step down, and not step up. I do not want empire builders; I want people who will be the first to tell me if their jobs are unnecessary. Out there in the private sector there are an awful lot of brains and talent in people who have not learned all the things you cannot do. (We will have) a new restructuring of the presidential cabinet that will make cabinet officer the managers of the national administration – not captives of the bureaucracy or special interest in departments that they are supposed to direct[3].”

The advantages and disadvantages of recruitment system

The American method of staffing the administration is based on the unique tradition of the presidency: position of party patronage existing alongside a large prominent bureaucracy appointed on the basis of competitive examination. This piecemeal evolution has, of course led to problems, but at the same time the system recruitment has proved to be functional within the diffuse executive branch.

The president is able to receive political advice from people he trust and who are committed to the administration programs. He is able to influence policy making and execution by appointing senior advisers and some middle management position in each department. On the other hand, it can be argued that the system of recruitment causes friction between the permanent civil servant and the “outsiders” who are immediately placed in senior position while knowing little or nothing practical working of the department.

CONCLUSION

The process of it is a sub-process, related to every point to the American political system as a whole, and revealing something of reactive nature of the Cabinet as an institution. The process finds its underlying consistency in the fundamental pluralism of American Politics. Until such time as the basic contours of the system change, Cabinet appointment will continue to frustrate those who seek a neatly rational scheme of selection to which they can apply equally well-structured systems prediction and judgment.

REFERENCES

Baumgartner, Frank R. 1998. Basic Interest: The Imprtance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. New Jersey : Princeton University Press

Grant, Alan. 2004. The American Political Process. New York : Routledge Publishing

Keefe, William., Henry Abraham., William Flanigan., Charles Jones., Morris Ogul., John Spanier. 1983. American Democracy: Intstitution, Politics, and Policies. Illinois: The Dorsey Press


[1] Grant, 2004. p. 219.

[2] Grant, 2004. p.220.

[3] Keef, 1983. p.350

US CONGRESS and The Committee System


To understand the committee system is, in very large part, to understand Congress as a whole. Power of congress is dispersed and scattered in twenty two standing committees in the Hose, fifteen in the Senate, and seven major joint committees (on which members of both the House and Senate it), and further dispersed into a proliferating network of subcommittees (today, well over two hundred)[1]. Each major standing committee enjoys jurisdiction over a particular subject matter (these usually parallel the executive departments: justice, interior, commerce, labor, etc); a sizable professional staff to help it in its work; and a history of general deference from other congressional committees in its area of jurisdiction[2]. The basis of the committee system, then, has traditionally been found in subject matter specialization and in seniority, qualifications which, while understandable in some respects, fragment, decentralize both houses of Congress. The implications of such distribution of power were and are serious. Especially for a bill to become law, it has always been necessary to first gain the approval of powerful and strategically located chairmen scattered in various committees. A single legislative proposal, for instance, might have to clear at least three committees in its own chamber. To say nothing of the other chamber, as well as the “conference committee” to work out any disparities between versions of bills coming out of each house of Congress. The ability of congress to formulate and successfully complete legislative work on importantn pieces of national policy, whether  related energy, the environment, the economy, or foreign policy, is thus limited, but the same is not necessarily the case for legislation related to congressional “pork barrel”, in which a condition when virtually all members of Congress have something to gain[3]. As the bicameral system in US Congress in which power is divided between House and Senate, there has created a multitude of power generates the background reasion of committee establishment. Additionally, private interest-groups, and mostly representing business have been better able to penetrate and to form cozy relationships with subsections of Congress and raise the necessity of committee and subcomittee creation. Those committees are known as:

  1. Standing Committee

Permanent committees established under the standing rules of the Senate and specializing in the consideration of particular subject areas. There are currently 16 standing committees.

  1. Select Committee

A committee established by the Senate for a limited time period to perform a particular study or investigation. These committees might be given or denied authority to report legislation to the Senate.

  1. Joint Committee

Committees including membership from both houses of Congress. Joint committees are usually established with narrow jurisdictions and normally lack authority to report legislation. Chairmanship usually alternates between the House and Senate members from Congress to Congress.

  1. Subcommittee

Subunit of a committee established for the purpose of dividing the committee’s workload. Recommendations of a subcommittee must be approved by the full committee before being reported to the Senate.

  1. Conference Committee

A temporary, ad hoc panel composed of House and Senate conference which is formed for the purpose of reconciling differences in legislation that has passed both chambers. Conference committees are usually convened to resolve bicameral differences on major and controversial legislation[4].

CONCLUSION

Congress is an institution with bicameral system in which to bridge differences between senate and houses, then commitees are established based on specific roles they play.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glosary_term/conference_committee.htm

Cipto, Bambang. 2004. Politik dan Pemerintahan Amerika.

Greenberg, Edward. 1983.  The American Political System: A Radical Approach. University of Colorado

commerce.senate.gov (US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation)


[1] Greenberg, Edward. 1983. The Political American System: ARadical Approach. P. 313

[2] Greenberg, Edward. 1983. The Political American System: A Radical Approach. P. 314

[3] Fiorina. Congress. P. 42

[4] http://www.senate.gov/reference/

Mass Media Influencing in US Foreign Policy


INTRODUCTION

The mass media and communication process have become very significant elements in the politics of US foreign policy. More importanly mass media has become the forth pillar in the US democracy. Besides, US mass media has high relative freedom other than its democracy partners. Two accounts for this: (1) people have greater need for information about national and international affaris and (2) communications revolution makes it possible to rapidly communicate events and information instantly anywher. General importance of mass media is people will always rely on the sources of events and informations from radio television, internet of newspaper before they eventually shape and voice their opinion publicly. The american public, both mass and elite publics have become dependent on the news media for information and uneestanding of national and international affairs. In many ways, media coverage today is better than ever before. However, regardless the rapid development of mass media throughout US, Americans have less attention on international affairs in which they are more interested with issues concerning domestic issues about their own government. But above sentence does not close the possibilities of American on thinking and shaping their opinion in international affairs. Then, this makes the US media’s concern on international affairs is partially pays greater attention to the countries which are economically affluent, politically powerful and culturally similar to the United States. As an exact example, there is one foreign affair devoted cable television spesifically raises discussion about foreign affair on nation-state issues, it’s CNN—Cable News Network that has already had covered on more thatn 120 countries in the world. The influence of mass media can be vary according to the aspects or issues where lots of audiences or viewers are interested to hear, listen nor read. Those can be concerning about health, social security, financial and others, but we are going to focus our discussion on how mass media will help to give affect on foreign policy decision making.

Foreign policy decision making can be influenced by the action takes based on what is delivered by the mass media.

Most of american media focus on the local and national news with little attention given to international news. There is indirect approach as media seeks to influence foreign policy that is using pblication and broadcastst to try and change the beliefs and policy preferences of mass and or elite audiences. There are two historical examples in which mass media can lead to influencing foreign policy.

First, Foreign policy decision making is also influenced by the actions the public takes based on what is represented by the media, or just the simple influence the media itself has on the government. An example of this is the “CNN effect”, a phenomenon where the broadcasts of cable news organizations spur the action of the U.S. government and foreign policy officials. The term was coined in response to the footage of starving children in Somalia, which weighed highly on officials and prompted them to send military aid there. Then the footage of Somalis dragging the dead body of an American soldier though the streets was aired, and this represented a case that led to withdrawal. Here it is admitted that foreign policy officials often learn of trouble spots abroad from cable channel coverage. With this at hand, one can assume that, if it is in the media’s interest, it can be used in various forms, such as convincing propaganda, to directly influence foreign policy. The media, whether by choice or by accident, influences the public, and in the U.S., the public plays a large part in the election of foreign officials, although it is indirect. After the initial success of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with a quick defeat of the Iraqi military and the capture of Saddam Hussein, the public was bombarded with images of fallen soldiers. A gradual shift of public support of the ensued as the media relayed the “facts” about the conflict. When the notion that the war was not proving successful spread, a public effort against the war began. Protests rang out in Washington, and some officials were forced to speak against the war in order to keep their popularity. A resistance to the war in Iraq erupted, and the foreign policy decision making was strongly influenced. The original reason for entering the war, the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction, transitioned to the claim that terrorist groups that threatened national security were operational within Iraq. They also made a hard case for the freedom of the Iraqi people, stating that if the U.S. was to withdraw its forces, Iraq would once again fall into the hands of a regime ruled by another dictator. As exemplified here, the government was forced to change its foreign relations with Iraq to counter opposition to the Iraq War, as a result of the public reaction from what was disclosed by the media. (2) it will be talking about the lack of exact information provided by mass media could lead to the failure of foreign policy needed to solve the international problems in the extent of international relations in making a more peaceful world. The example is the failure of the media to fully report on the genocide that claimed esetimated 800,000 lives in Rwanda during 100-day periond in 1994, made it easy for Western governments to ignore the ciris that they preferred not to acknowledge untill long after it ended.[1]

CONCLUSION

Therefore, we can assume that mass media has played critical role in shaping public opinion and then become a political actors in which they cover area to influence foreign policy. Due to Americans are deendent on the media as source of information—national and internationl affairs, news media have a major impact on public knowledge in the politics of US foreign policy. Therefore, mass media has become the desireable access form competing groups of interests in influencing and controlling nor shaping public opinion as well as to arrange foreign policy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

newsflavor.com

Carrauthers, Susan. 2000. The Media at War. New York: St. Martin’s Press


[1] Carruthers, Susan. 2000. Media at War published by St. Martin’s Press

Interest Group: Influencing in Foreign Policy


INTEREST GROUP: INFLUENCING IN FOREIGN POLICY

INTRODUCTION

The definition of interest group in US history narates as the organizationas that seek to influence the public policy in which many variety of organizations can be assumed as interest groups. Interest groups then defined as groups range from large, mass-membership organizations such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), to labor unios, such as the United Auto Workers (UAW), to large corporations such as Exxon Mobile. Interest group activity is something in which they they engage in order to protect their primary activities, such as making and selling a product or service. Another distinction that can be made between interest groups that exist to promote a particular cause such as the National Rifle Association in which exists primarily to oppose gun control and interest groups such as corporations that may become involved in a wide range of pulic policies such as taxation, environmental protection, and trade policy that affects their interests.

Interest groups have been long thought to be central to American politics. The writers of Federalist Papers especially in Numbers 10 and 51 cast their arguments in favor of the Constitution in large part on how it would both facilitate and restrain interest-group activity. In the thought of American History, different types of interest groups have been brought to prominent as the products of socioeconomic changer, social movements, and government policies. For instance, the recurring economic crises of American agriculture from the alte nieteenth century onward prompted the creation of a succession of agricultural interest group: the Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Farmer’s Union. The major social movements of the late twentieth century also left an impac in which civil rights groups came to prominence in the 1960’s, folowed by groups representing women (especially the National Organization for Women—NOW). Business interest groups, seeking to counter the influence of unions and public-interest groups, set the pace in terms of fund-raising and organization in the 1980’s and 1990s. While some of these interest groups have since seen their influence decline, all retain an important presence in American politics today. The interest-group landscape thus reflects a complex geology in which, different interest groups are created by a variety forces.

Interest groups have used a wide array of tactics over the yearrs, ranging from campaigning in elections to bribery. The most obvious tactics used today are lobbying and making campaign contribution. All major interest group such as the American Federation of Labor-Congress Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the Business Roundtable, and individual companies such as Exxon Mobile or DuPont employ professionals whose job is to persuade legislators and executive-branch officials of the wisdom and justice of the group’s case. Most studies of lobbyist have condluded that the most effective lobbyist are those who have established with whom they deal[1].

In spite of the the ubiquity, a debate has raged throughout American history about whether interest groups are an aird or a barrier to the practice of democracy. Defenders of interest groups aregued that they are both a central aspect of democratic politics and an aid to good government. The Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to petition theri government and interest groups exists to do just that. The clash of interest between interest groups aids policymakers by prviding more and better information for making policy decisions. However, interest groups also have dominates a policy area to the disadvantage of the public as a whole. Second, it is feared that the interest group system distorts democary because the resources required to be effective attract members and money; the large corporations that they confront can easily command the resources they need to staf a Washington office for their lobbyist, to creat a PAC, or to make soft money contribution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY


[1] Most lobbyists feel that they are more likely to gain a hearing for their arguments if their interest group makes campaign contributions to the politicians with whom they deal. Since 1974, campaign contributions made directly to candidates (known as hard money) must be made through Political Action Committee (PACs) that are linked to the interest group but legally separated from its general funds. Contributions are limited to a maximum of $5,000 for each election (primary and general) and must be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC.) It was hoped that the combination of limiting contributions considerably and publicizing them would prevent abuses. In the late twentieth century, however, interest groups were allowed to make unlimited contributions through parties to candidates. This “soft money” could come directly from the interest group’s general funds and need not have been raised explicitly for political purposes.