elpais.com
US Foreign Policy: Elite Control vs. Public Opinion
A small group of elites, not the general public, largely determines US foreign policy, consistently disregarding public opinion on issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Iraq War, and various covert operations.
- Who actually determines US foreign policy, and how do their interests shape governmental decisions?
- The design of US foreign policy is primarily determined by a small group of elites, not the general public. These elites represent their own interests and derive power from their positions within the government and affiliated organizations. Their decisions often contradict public opinion.
- What are some historical examples demonstrating the discrepancy between US public opinion and the government's foreign policy actions?
- This disconnect between public opinion and government action is a persistent pattern in US foreign policy. Examples include the public's opposition to the US stance on Israel, the Iraq War, and various CIA and FBI actions, despite government actions continuing. This pattern suggests a systemic issue.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of this disconnect between elite decision-making and public opinion in shaping US foreign policy and international relations?
- The future of US foreign policy likely involves a continuation of this elite-driven approach, leading to potential conflicts with public values and international norms. Increased transparency and accountability mechanisms are needed to bridge this gap and ensure policy reflects the will of the people. Ignoring public opinion risks eroding public trust and legitimacy.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing consistently emphasizes the disconnect between public opinion and government foreign policy decisions. The use of examples like the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Kyoto Protocol reinforces this narrative, potentially shaping reader perception towards a view of government disregard for public will.
Language Bias
While the author uses strong language to describe government actions ('atrocities,' 'lies,' 'manipulation'), this is arguably justified given the serious nature of the accusations. The language is largely factual and supports the author's argument, rather than exhibiting a biased tone.
Bias by Omission
The article highlights significant omissions regarding public knowledge of government actions, such as the devastation of East Timor, bombings of Cambodia and Laos, and drone assassinations. These omissions prevent informed public debate and consent. The lack of transparency around the CIA's MK-ULTRA project and biological weapons testing on US citizens further exemplifies this bias.
False Dichotomy
The text doesn't present a false dichotomy in the traditional sense. However, the consistent presentation of a dichotomy between elite decision-making and public opinion, without exploring potential mediating factors or nuances in the relationship, might be considered a form of implicit false dichotomy.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a significant disconnect between US public opinion on foreign policy and government actions. Public support for peaceful solutions, international cooperation, and arms control consistently clashes with government policies. This demonstrates a failure of institutions to represent the will of the people and uphold principles of peace and justice. Examples cited include the Iraq War, support for Israel despite public opposition, and the continuation of unpopular policies like the Cuba embargo. The secrecy surrounding actions like drone strikes and biological weapons testing further undermines accountability and transparency, key aspects of strong institutions.